People v. Graham, 57 N.Y.2d 722 (1982)

A defendant’s explicit agreement to waive the right to appeal an unfavorable verdict, made as a condition of the prosecution’s consent to a jury view of the crime scene, is a valid and binding waiver if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consents to the waiver as a part of trial strategy.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of robbery, and the Appellate Division reversed based on the trial court’s allowing the jury to view the crime scene after deliberations began, due to minor changes in the store layout. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the defendant’s consent to the viewing, made with awareness of the store’s altered state and as part of trial strategy, constituted a waiver of his right to object. Furthermore, his explicit agreement to waive appeal rights in exchange for the prosecution’s consent to the viewing was a valid waiver.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of robbing a grocery store. The layout of the store had changed slightly between the time of the robbery and the trial. The defendant objected to the jury viewing the scene under these altered conditions but ultimately consented after the trial court denied his request to rearrange the displays. As a condition of his consent, the District Attorney extracted an agreement from the defendant that he would waive his right to appeal if the jury returned an unfavorable verdict.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted the defendant of robbery. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction “on the law,” finding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to view the crime scene after deliberations had begun, given the changes in the store layout. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s consent to the jury viewing the crime scene, despite awareness of changes in the scene’s layout, constituted a waiver of his right to object to the procedure on appeal?
2. Whether the defendant’s explicit agreement to waive his right to appeal an unfavorable verdict, made as a condition of the District Attorney’s consent to the jury viewing, constituted a valid and binding waiver?

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendant consented to the viewing after the trial court ruled against him on his request to rearrange the store, and he was aware that the court would not have permitted the visit without both parties’ agreement, implying a strategic decision to risk potential prejudice.
2. Yes, because the defendant explicitly agreed to forego his right to appeal based on the post-summation viewing if the jury returned an unfavorable verdict, and this agreement was a valid and binding waiver.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the defendant’s consent to the jury viewing was a deliberate choice of trial strategy. The court reasoned that the defendant believed the visit would be helpful to his case and willingly accepted the risk of prejudice due to the store’s altered layout. The court stated, “The only reasonable inference to be drawn from these circumstances is that defendant honestly believed that a jury visit to the scene would be helpful to his case and that he was therefore willing to accept the risk of whatever prejudice might arise as a result of the changes in the layout of the grocery store.”

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant’s explicit agreement to waive his right to appeal was a valid and binding waiver. The court noted that this agreement “was exacted by the District Attorney as a condition to his own consent, was itself a valid and binding waiver, and it should have been respected when the case was considered at the Appellate Division.” The court emphasized the importance of upholding such agreements, absent extenuating circumstances, reinforcing the principle that defendants are bound by their strategic choices during trial.