People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836 (1990)
A defendant must object to a trial court’s jury instructions regarding the defendant’s failure to testify in order to preserve the issue for appellate review, unless the instruction expressly or unambiguously suggests the defendant should have testified.
Summary
This case addresses whether a defendant must object to a trial court’s jury instructions regarding the defendant’s right not to testify in order to preserve the issue for appeal. The New York Court of Appeals held that absent a timely objection, the alleged error is unpreserved for review, unless the charge expressly or unambiguously conveys to the jury that the defendant should have testified. The Court reasoned that without a specific objection, it’s unclear whether the defense counsel strategically chose not to object, believing an extended instruction might benefit the defendant.
Facts
The defendants in these consolidated cases (Autry, Lara, Brown, and Fehr) claimed the trial courts’ jury instructions regarding their decision not to testify were overly expansive and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. They argued that the instructions should have been limited to the bare statutory language, and that the courts unduly emphasized their silence.
Procedural History
In *People v. Autry, People v. Lara,* and *People v. Brown*, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. In *People v. Fehr*, the Appellate Division reversed the defendant’s conviction on the law. The People appealed the *Fehr* decision. In all four cases, the defendants appealed, arguing the jury instructions were improper. The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the cases to resolve the common legal issue.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant must object to a trial court’s jury instructions concerning the defendant’s decision not to testify in order to preserve a claim of error for appellate review.
Holding
Yes, because an objection is required to preserve a point of law for appellate review except in a very small class of cases where the error results in a trial “at basic variance with the mandate of law prescribed by Constitution or statute.” In the context of a charge error implicating a defendant’s right against self-incrimination, this exception applies only where the instruction expressly or unambiguously conveys to the jury that the defendant should have testified.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the alleged errors were not preserved for review because the defendants did not object to the instructions at trial. The Court applied the general rule that objections to jury charges must be made at trial to preserve the issue for appeal, citing *People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167 (1965)* and *People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467 (1980)*. The Court clarified that an exception exists for errors that result in a trial fundamentally at odds with constitutional or statutory mandates, but this exception only applies where the jury instruction explicitly or unambiguously implies the defendant should have testified. The court stated, “An objection is required to preserve a point of law for appellate review except in a very small class of cases where the error results in a trial ‘at basic variance with the mandate of law prescribed by Constitution or statute.’” The Court distinguished the case from *People v. McLucas*, noting that the instructions in these cases were facially correct and the defendants only complained about possible nuances and inferences. The Court also suggested that the lack of objection might have been a strategic decision by defense counsel. In *People v. Fehr*, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the Appellate Division erred in reviewing the unpreserved claim. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to exercise its fact review and interest of justice jurisdiction.