People v. Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014 (1983)

To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise the specific argument at trial when the alleged error can be corrected.

Summary

Defendant Johnson appealed his conviction, arguing that his suppression motion should have been granted and that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order. The Court held that the suppression issue was unreviewable because it involved mixed questions of law and fact supported by evidence. Additionally, the alibi defense argument was not preserved because the defendant failed to adequately inform the trial court of the basis for his request or to object to the court’s reasoning at the time of the denial.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of an unspecified crime. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, which was denied. At trial, the defendant requested the court to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense, based on his girlfriend’s statements and his own statement to the police. The trial court denied this request, noting that the girlfriend’s statements related to events after the victim’s death, according to the prosecution’s theory, and that there was no other evidence supporting an alibi defense.

Procedural History

The case was tried in a lower court, where the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion is reviewable on appeal, given that it involved mixed questions of law and fact supported by evidence.

2. Whether the defendant preserved his claim that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense.

Holding

1. No, because the trial court’s determinations involved mixed questions of law and fact which are supported by evidence in the record.

2. No, because the defendant did not adequately inform the trial court of the basis for his request or object to the court’s reasoning at the time of the denial; thus, the error was not preserved for review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the suppression motion issue involved mixed questions of law and fact, and because the trial court’s determinations were supported by evidence in the record, the issue was beyond review. As to the alibi defense, the Court emphasized the importance of preservation of error. The Court stated, “At the time the motion was denied the court noted that the statements of the defendant’s girlfriend did not provide an alibi because they related to events occurring after the time of the victim’s death according to the People’s theory at trial. The defendant did not dispute this conclusion at the trial nor did he object to the court’s further statement that there was no other evidence in the record supporting an alibi defense.” The Court highlighted that the defendant never informed the court of the basis for the request, specifically failing to argue that his statement to the police constituted an alibi. Because the defendant failed to bring this point to the court’s attention when the alleged error could have been corrected, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The court implicitly underscores the importance of giving the trial court the opportunity to correct its own errors.