56 N.Y.2d 886 (1982)
To preserve a claim of excessive judicial interference for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection that alerts the trial judge to the alleged overreach and provides an opportunity to correct the issue, or demonstrate that such an objection would have been futile.
Summary
Charleston was convicted of attempted murder, attempted robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon. He appealed, arguing the trial judge’s extensive questioning of witnesses deprived him of a fair trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Charleston failed to adequately preserve the issue for appellate review because his objections were directed at specific questions, not the judge’s overall conduct. The Court emphasized that counsel must alert the judge to the prejudicial pattern of questioning to allow for correction, unless doing so would be demonstrably futile.
Facts
Defendant Charleston was convicted on multiple charges after a jury trial. During the trial, the judge actively questioned witnesses. Defense counsel raised objections to some of the judge’s questions. However, the objections were directed at individual questions asked by the judge.
Procedural History
Following a jury trial, Charleston was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Charleston appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses deprived him of a fair trial. The Appellate Division affirmed. Charleston then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a claim of excessive interference by a trial judge is preserved for appellate review when objections are made to specific questions but not to the judge’s general course of conduct, and a motion for mistrial is not made.
Holding
No, because to preserve the issue for review, the defense must object to the judge’s overall pattern of questioning or show that such an objection would be unavailing, and a motion for mistrial should be considered to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct the asserted error.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a trial judge is entitled to question witnesses to clarify testimony and facilitate the trial’s progress. However, this right is not unlimited. If it becomes clear that the judge intends to exceed their permissible role and assume the advocate’s function, defense counsel must attempt to register some protest to that conduct to preserve the matter for appellate review. The objection must be of a nature to apprise the trial judge that it is their intrusion into the conduct of the trial that is at issue.
Here, the Court found that while defense counsel objected three times to questioning by the trial judge, the objections were directed to specific questions rather than to the judge’s general course of action or participation as a whole. The Court stated that “after it becomes ‘clear that the Judge intends to exceed his permissible role and assume the advocate’s function’ (53 NY2d, at p 55), it is incumbent upon defense counsel at least to attempt to register some protest to that conduct to preserve the matter for appellate review.”
The Court recognized the difficulty in objecting to a judge’s conduct, stating that “the greater the Trial Judge’s penchant for participation in the questioning of witnesses, the more difficult will it be for counsel to register objection to the Judge’s conduct for fear of antagonizing him.” However, there was no indication in the record that such a situation existed in this case.
Because Charleston failed to make an appropriate objection or to move for a mistrial, the Court held that review of his claim was precluded. The court emphasized that by failing to call the judge’s attention to his allegedly prejudicial conduct, the defendant did not offer him an opportunity to alter or correct it.