People v. Boettner, 69 N.Y.2d 149 (1986)
A jury should be instructed to consider a lesser included offense only if they unanimously find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense.
Summary
The case addresses the appropriate jury instruction when a lesser included offense is submitted. The defendant, convicted of driving while intoxicated, argued the trial court erred by instructing the jury to consider the lesser included offense of driving while impaired only if they found him not guilty of the greater offense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury must unanimously acquit the defendant of the greater offense before considering the lesser. The court reasoned that allowing consideration of the lesser offense without unanimous acquittal of the greater could lead to compromise verdicts and undermine the prosecution’s right to retry the defendant on the greater offense if the jury is deadlocked.
Facts
A police officer observed the defendant driving erratically, including making wide turns and crossing the center line. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer noticed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. The defendant refused a chemical test to determine blood alcohol level. At trial, the defendant presented evidence that he had consumed only two alcoholic drinks earlier in the morning. The defense requested that the jury be instructed it could consider the lesser included offense of driving while impaired if they found the defendant not guilty, or if they were “unable to reach” a verdict on the greater offense.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony. He appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a jury should be instructed to consider a lesser included offense only if it finds the defendant not guilty of the greater offense, or whether the jury can consider the lesser offense if it is unable to reach a verdict on the greater offense.
Holding
No, because the jury must unanimously acquit the defendant of the greater offense before considering any lesser included offense. Permitting consideration of the lesser offense without a unanimous acquittal on the greater offense could lead to compromise verdicts and improperly bar retrial on the greater offense.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on precedent and statutory interpretation. Although CPL 300.50(4) does not directly address the transition instruction, the court stated that its enactment was intended to reflect the existing judicial interpretation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the jury should be allowed to consider the lesser offense if they are “unable to agree” on the greater offense, reasoning that this could lead to compromise verdicts. The court emphasized the jury’s duty to render a just verdict based on the facts and the law, not on sympathy or compromise. The court distinguished federal cases that allow an “unable to agree” transition charge, noting that the federal rule does not automatically deem a conviction of a lesser offense an acquittal of the greater for double jeopardy purposes, as does CPL 300.50(4). The court disapproved of prior inconsistent holdings in People v. Baker and Matter of Kitt v. Haft. As the Court stated: “It is the duty of the jury not to reach compromise verdicts based on sympathy for the defendant or to appease holdouts, but to render a just verdict by applying the facts it finds to the law it is charged (People v Mussenden, 308 NY 558, 562, supra).”