People v. Brown, 46 N.Y.2d 953 (1979)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must obtain a definitive ruling from the trial court, either by requesting a curative instruction or moving for a mistrial after an objection is sustained.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of a crime related to a cocaine sale. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in preventing him from learning the identity of a confidential informant and that the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. Because the defendant did not seek a judicial ruling after the prosecution objected to revealing the informant’s identity and did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial after the prosecutor’s comments, the appellate court was precluded from considering these alleged errors.
Facts
An informant arranged a cocaine sale and subsequently provided information to the police that led to the defendant’s arrest.
During the trial, defense counsel attempted to elicit the identity of the informant from a People’s witness.
The District Attorney objected, and the trial judge sustained the objection, preventing the witness from revealing the informant’s name.
During summation, the prosecutor made comments to which defense counsel objected. The trial judge sustained the objection and directed the prosecutor to refrain from making similar statements.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant properly preserved for appellate review the issue of the trial court’s refusal to compel disclosure of the informant’s identity.
2. Whether the defendant properly preserved for appellate review the issue of the prosecutor’s allegedly improper summation remarks.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant failed to seek a judicial ruling on the question after the District Attorney’s objection was sustained.
2. No, because the defendant failed to request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial after the trial judge sustained the objection to the prosecutor’s remarks.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that when the District Attorney objected to revealing the informant’s identity, it was the defendant’s responsibility to seek a judicial ruling if he believed the disclosure would be helpful to his case. Failing to do so precluded him from raising the issue on appeal. The court cited CPL 470.35, subd 1 and 470.05, subd 2 in support of this conclusion.
Regarding the prosecutor’s summation remarks, the court noted that the trial judge sustained the defense counsel’s objection and directed the prosecutor to stop making similar statements. However, the defense counsel did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial. The Court of Appeals emphasized that, without such a request, no error of law was preserved for appellate review.
The court implicitly relied on the principle that a trial court must be given the opportunity to correct any alleged errors before they can be raised on appeal. A simple objection is insufficient; the party must seek further action by the court to remedy the perceived error.
The court’s decision highlights the importance of contemporaneous objections and the need to seek definitive rulings from the trial court to preserve issues for appeal. As the court suggested, a defendant must do more than simply object; they must actively seek a remedy from the trial court, such as a curative instruction or a mistrial, to preserve the issue for appellate review.