People v. Lennon, 42 N.Y.2d 321 (1977)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a specific request or exception to the court’s ruling or failure to rule at the trial level.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny for operating a Ponzi scheme. On appeal, she argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the larceny charges, specifically concerning Penal Law § 155.05(2)(d). However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction because the defendant’s counsel failed to request the specific charge she now claimed was necessary or to object to the court’s omission. The Court held that this failure to register a timely protest meant the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The Court also found the defendant’s other contentions to be either unpreserved or without merit.
Facts
The defendant operated a Ponzi scheme, convincing victims to invest in Spanish real estate and Indonesian imports (automobiles, trucks, and parts).
The defendant was subsequently charged and convicted on seven counts of grand larceny in the second degree.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the trial court.
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s alleged error in failing to charge the jury in accordance with Penal Law § 155.05(2)(d) was preserved for appellate review when the defendant’s counsel neither requested the specific charge nor objected to its omission.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s counsel failed to either request the desired charge or except to the court’s failure to so charge, the issue has not been preserved for review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the fundamental principle that errors must be preserved at trial to be raised on appeal. This means that a party must bring the alleged error to the trial court’s attention, giving the court an opportunity to correct it. In this case, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not including a specific instruction related to Penal Law § 155.05(2)(d) in its charge to the jury.
However, the defendant’s counsel did not request this specific instruction, nor did they object to the court’s failure to include it. Because of this omission, the Court of Appeals held that the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. The court essentially stated that it would not consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal. The court summarily dismissed the defendant’s other claims, finding them either unpreserved or without merit.