People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise a specific objection at the time of the alleged error, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct it; a new or different objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and assault after shooting his neighbor. During jury deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge, which the court declined, offering them the opportunity to take notes instead. Later, jurors orally requested instructions on intoxication, intent, and other issues. Defendant moved for a mistrial, objecting to the oral questions but not to the note-taking or the lack of opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions beforehand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his appellate claims by not raising timely and specific objections at trial.
Facts
The defendant argued with his neighbor about his dog and subsequently shot the neighbor. The jury rejected the defendant’s alibi defense and convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, as well as assault in the second and third degrees. During deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial. He appealed, raising issues related to the jury’s note-taking during supplemental instructions and the court’s handling of oral questions from the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue of the jury taking notes during supplemental instructions when he failed to object at the time the court permitted note-taking and, in fact, objected to a subsequent cautionary instruction on note-taking.
2. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue that he was denied an opportunity to discuss with the court supplemental instructions before they were given to the jury, when his only objection at trial was that the oral questions did not permit him to preserve the jury’s queries.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant did not object to the note-taking when it occurred and later objected to a cautionary instruction, thereby waiving any claim regarding the need for such instructions.
2. No, because the defendant’s objection at trial was based on a different ground than the argument he raised on appeal, specifically that he was denied the opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions with the court before they were given.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of raising timely and specific objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review. The court stated that, regarding the note-taking, “at the time the court permitted the jurors to take notes, there was no objection and no request for cautionary instructions.” Furthermore, when the prosecutor requested cautionary instructions, “the defendant objected, thereby waiving any claim he might have had regarding the need for cautionary instructions.”
Regarding the supplemental instructions, the court cited People v. O’Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, which indicates a defendant should have an opportunity to discuss proposed answers to jurors’ questions. However, the court found that the defendant’s objection at trial only pertained to the lack of a clear record of the jury’s questions, not the denial of an opportunity to confer on the instructions. The court cited People v. DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801, to reinforce the principle that a claim must be properly preserved to be reviewable on appeal. The court reasoned that the purpose of requiring a specific objection is to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error. By failing to raise the specific objection at trial, the defendant deprived the court of that opportunity, and the issue was therefore not preserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals thus reinforced the idea that objections need to be clear and contemporaneous to the error to allow for proper judicial consideration and correction at trial.