People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011 (1976)

An appellate court will generally not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal if it was not properly preserved at the trial level.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that the defendant’s claim regarding the failure to provide Miranda warnings was not properly preserved for appellate review because it was not the basis of the motion to suppress the gun at trial. The Court distinguished this case from others where the issue could be reviewed despite the failure to timely raise it. Additionally, the Court found that the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard a witness’s testimony, due to her inability to withstand cross-examination, was sufficient to protect the defendant’s right of confrontation.

Facts

During the trial, the defendant moved to suppress a gun. The basis for the motion was not related to Miranda warnings. At some point during trial, a witness for the prosecution became unable to withstand intensive cross-examination due to her physical condition. The defendant moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion but instructed the jury to disregard the witness’s testimony.

Procedural History

The defendant appealed the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals reviewed the lower court’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the failure to provide Miranda warnings is reviewable on appeal, despite not being the basis for the motion to suppress the gun at trial.

2. Whether the trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when a prosecution witness could not be subjected to intensive cross-examination.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant’s failure to preserve this issue for review precludes his reliance upon it upon this appeal.

2. No, because the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard her testimony altogether sufficed in the circumstances to avoid any violation of defendant’s right of confrontation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun was not based on the failure to provide Miranda warnings. The Court distinguished this case from cases where the issue could be reviewed despite the failure to timely raise it, citing People v. Michael, 48 N.Y.2d 1. Because the issue was not properly raised at the trial level, the Court of Appeals declined to review it. Regarding the motion for a mistrial, the Court held that the trial court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the witness’s testimony was sufficient to protect the defendant’s right of confrontation. The court determined this instruction was adequate in the circumstances, implying that the witness’s testimony was not so prejudicial that it could not be cured by the instruction. The court considered the specific facts and circumstances when evaluating the potential prejudice and the efficacy of the curative instruction. The Court emphasizes the importance of raising legal arguments at the trial level to allow for proper fact-finding and legal analysis. Failure to do so generally waives the right to raise the issue on appeal. The case also demonstrates that curative instructions can be an effective tool to mitigate potential prejudice from inadmissible evidence or a witness’s inability to complete their testimony.