People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224 (1975)
To preserve a question of law for review by the New York Court of Appeals regarding a ruling or instruction of a criminal court, a protest must be registered at the time of such ruling or instruction, or at a subsequent time when the court has an opportunity to correct the error.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and attempted grand larceny. On appeal, he argued that the trial court’s jury charge contained errors, including misstatements of fact and confusing legal instructions. However, defense counsel did not object to the charge or request clarifications during the trial. The New York Court of Appeals held that because no timely objection was made, the alleged errors were not preserved for appellate review in that court. While the Appellate Division has discretion to review unpreserved errors, the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction is limited to questions of law that have been properly preserved.
Facts
The defendant was present during an attempted robbery where one of the victims was shot and killed by one of the defendant’s companions. At trial, the defendant admitted his presence but denied knowing his companions planned to commit a crime or that they were armed, and denied any participation. Another victim testified that the defendant cut off his escape route during the robbery attempt. Another witness testified that the defendant and his companion left his apartment earlier that evening, stating they needed money urgently, and that the defendant knew his companion had a gun. The defendant told a detective “they were looking for a prostitute and a pimp to take them off.”
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court. He appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing errors in the jury charge. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an unobjected-to error in the trial court’s jury charge is reviewable by the New York Court of Appeals when the defendant claims he was deprived of a fair trial.
Holding
No, because the failure to object to the charge or request further clarifications at a time when the error could have been corrected, means that the defendant preserved no question of law reviewable in the Court of Appeals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that its jurisdiction in criminal cases is limited to questions of law, and that CPL 470.05(2) requires a protest to a ruling or instruction at a time when the court could effectively change it. The court noted that counsel for both sides have a responsibility to protect the rights of the parties by calling the court’s attention to correctable errors of law. Here, the defendant’s failure to object to the jury charge at trial meant that the alleged errors were not preserved for review in the Court of Appeals. The Court distinguished the Appellate Division’s broader power under CPL 470.15(1) to consider any question of law or fact, even absent a protest. The Court stated: “[W]e note in this regard that counsel for both sides are not without responsibility in protecting the substantial rights of the parties and that that responsibility extends to calling the attention of the court to errors of law which adversely affect a client at a time when such errors are correctible.” Because the Appellate Division had already affirmed the judgment, the Court of Appeals was constrained to affirm as well, because the alleged errors were not reviewable in the absence of a proper exception or request.