People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299 (1982)
A trial court can only set aside a jury verdict under CPL 330.30(1) if there is an error of law that, if raised on appeal, would require reversal or modification of the judgment; the court cannot simply reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury’s.
Summary
Defendant, a New York City Police Officer, was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property and official misconduct. Defense counsel initially declined to present an entrapment defense, fearing the prosecution’s ability to introduce predisposition evidence. After resting, the defense sought to raise entrapment, reopen summation, and request an entrapment charge, all of which were denied. The trial court later set aside the verdict, believing it erred in not allowing the defense to reopen its summation. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, clarifying that a CPL 330.30(1) motion can only be granted based on errors of law, not disagreements with the jury’s factual findings, and that the trial court was correct to disallow the entrapment defense in light of the defense’s earlier disavowal.
Facts
The defendant, a New York City Police Officer, was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property and official misconduct.
At trial, defense counsel initially chose not to present an entrapment defense.
After resting their case, defense counsel attempted to raise entrapment, reopen the summation, and request a jury charge on entrapment.
The trial court denied these requests.
After the jury rendered a guilty verdict, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, stating it believed it had erred by not allowing the defense to reopen its summation.
Procedural History
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order and reinstated the jury verdict.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to allow the defendant to reopen his summation and request a charge on entrapment after the defense had initially disavowed the entrapment defense and rested its case?
Whether a trial court can set aside a jury verdict under CPL 330.30(1) based on a perceived error that does not constitute an error of law requiring reversal or modification on appeal?
Holding
1. No, because the defendant disavowed and failed to present evidence relevant to an entrapment defense, the trial court’s refusal to allow reopening of summation and denial of a charge on entrapment was correct.
2. No, because CPL 330.30(1) only authorizes setting aside a verdict if the record reveals an error of law that would require reversal or modification on appeal; it does not allow the trial court to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury’s.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals clarified the standard for granting a motion to set aside a verdict under CPL 330.30(1). The court emphasized that such a motion can only be granted if there is an error of law that would mandate reversal or modification upon appellate review. The court distinguished this from factual review or reweighing of evidence, which is not permissible under CPL 330.30(1). Citing People v. Carter, the court reiterated that a trial judge cannot simply re-evaluate the evidence and substitute their judgment for that of the jury.
Regarding the entrapment defense, the court found no error of law in the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to reopen his summation or to charge the jury on entrapment. Because the defendant had explicitly disavowed the entrapment defense and failed to present relevant evidence, the trial court’s decisions were “eminently correct.” The court emphasized that there was no abuse of discretion constituting an error of law.
The court also referenced People v. Collins, stating,