People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45 (1978)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a specific objection or request at the time of the alleged error; otherwise, the appellate court has discretion to review the unpreserved error.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the defendant preserved the argument of entitlement to an agency defense instruction for appellate review after being convicted of sale and possession of controlled substances. The Court of Appeals found that the defendant failed to properly preserve the issue because defense counsel did not request the agency defense instruction, mention it in summation, or object to its omission in the court’s charge. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to allow the Appellate Division to decide whether to exercise its discretionary power to review the unpreserved claim.
Facts
The defendant was on trial for the sale and possession of controlled substances. The defendant’s attorney made reference to the possibility of establishing an agency defense during arguments regarding cross-examination limits should the defendant testify. However, at the close of evidence, the defense attorney did not request an agency defense instruction, mention it in their summation, or object to the judge’s failure to include it in the charge to the jury.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the issue was preserved and the failure to charge agency constituted reversible error. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant preserved the argument that they were entitled to an agency defense instruction for appellate review by failing to request the instruction, mention it in summation, or object to its omission from the court’s charge.
Holding
No, because the defendant did not register a protest to the omission to charge with respect to the agency defense and therefore failed to preserve the error for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The court emphasized that the defendant’s initial reference to the agency defense during arguments about cross-examination was insufficient to preserve the issue. To properly preserve an issue, a party must make a specific request or objection at the time of the alleged error. Because the defendant did not request the instruction, mention it in summation, or object to its omission, the issue was not preserved. The court relied on the principle that appellate courts generally do not review errors that were not brought to the trial court’s attention. The court remitted the case to the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power to review the defendant’s claim of reversible error despite the lack of preservation, referencing People v. Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33-34. The Court of Appeals underscored that it is the responsibility of the parties to raise issues at the trial level to allow the court an opportunity to correct any errors. The court’s decision highlights the importance of proper and timely objections in preserving issues for appeal.