76 N.Y.2d 908 (1990)
To preserve an objection to a jury instruction for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to alert the trial court to the alleged error and allow for corrective action.
Summary
In People v. Jackson, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the defendant adequately preserved his objection to the trial court’s jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The trial court had defined reasonable doubt as a doubt for which jurors could give a reason. On appeal, the defendant argued that this instruction diluted the prosecution’s burden of proof. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s objection at trial was insufficient to preserve the specific argument he raised on appeal, because the original objection was not based on the same grounds raised on appeal.
Facts
During the trial, the judge instructed the jury on the concept of reasonable doubt, stating twice that a reasonable doubt was a doubt for which the jurors would be able to give a reason. The judge further illustrated this point by using the jurors’ names in an example.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the conviction was affirmed. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s objection to the trial court’s jury instruction on reasonable doubt was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review, specifically regarding his claim that the instruction diluted the People’s burden of proof.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s objection at trial did not specifically argue that the instruction diluted the People’s burden of proof by conveying a requirement that the doubting juror must give reasons supported by evidence. The argument made on appeal was different than the grounds for objection raised at the trial level.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a specific objection at trial. The objection must be sufficiently detailed to alert the trial court to the perceived error and provide an opportunity for correction. The Court found that the defendant’s objection at trial, which focused on the instruction unfairly punishing less articulate jurors, was distinct from his appellate argument that the instruction diluted the People’s burden of proof. Because the defendant’s initial objection did not fairly apprise the court of the argument he later raised on appeal, the issue was not preserved for review. The court essentially held that an objection must be based on the same legal grounds at trial as it is on appeal.