People v. Baker, 64 N.Y.2d 1024 (1985)
A constitutional challenge to a statute must be properly raised in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Term’s order, holding that the evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for aggravated disorderly conduct. The Court declined to address the defendant’s constitutional challenge to the statute because the defendant failed to raise the issue in a timely manner before the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving legal arguments at the trial level to allow for proper judicial consideration and avoid surprising the opposing party and the court on appeal.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of aggravated disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.21. The specific facts constituting the disorderly conduct are not detailed in this memorandum opinion.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s claim that Penal Law § 240.21 violates the due process and establishment clauses of the United States Constitution was properly preserved for appellate review.
Holding
No, because the defendant failed to raise the constitutional challenge in a timely manner before the trial court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s constitutional challenge was not preserved for review because she did not move for dismissal of the accusatory instrument based on the statute’s unconstitutionality within the time prescribed by CPL 170.30(1)(a), CPL 170.35(1)(c), CPL 170.30(2), and CPL 255.20(1). The defendant never made her constitutional argument known to the trial court before, during, or after the trial.
The Court cited People v. Thomas, emphasizing that the rule requiring a defendant to preserve points for appellate review applies generally to claims of error involving federal constitutional rights. The Court also cited People v. Dozier, where a constitutional challenge to the statute defining third-degree rape was foreclosed because it was not properly raised. The court stated: “the rule requiring a defendant to preserve his points for appellate review applies generally to claims of error involving Federal constitutional rights”.
By failing to raise the issue at the trial level, the defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to rule on the constitutional question and potentially avoid the need for an appeal. This procedural requirement ensures fairness and allows for the orderly administration of justice.