People v. Wosu, 84 N.Y.2d 936 (1994)
To preserve a claim for appellate review, a party must specifically and adequately raise the issue before the trial court.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of rape and sexual abuse of twin seven-year-old girls. The indictment alleged the crimes occurred between November 1 and November 30, 1991, later narrowed to “around Thanksgiving.” During deliberations, the jury asked for the “actual date” of the crimes. The trial judge instructed them that the date was a question of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant’s appellate claims were not properly preserved at trial because his counsel did not specifically object to the supplemental jury instruction.
Facts
The defendant was accused of raping and sexually abusing twin seven-year-old girls. The alleged incidents occurred between November 1 and November 30, 1991. The prosecution narrowed the timeframe to “around Thanksgiving” in a bill of particulars. The child victims’ memories were linked to a Thanksgiving dinner at their father’s house.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial judge’s supplemental instruction should have informed the jury that the incident occurred on or near Thanksgiving Day, consistent with the evidence presented at trial.
Whether it was error to instruct the jury that the date of the incident was a question of fact for their determination.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s trial counsel did not specifically and adequately preserve the issue for appellate review.
No, because the defendant’s trial counsel did not specifically and adequately preserve the issue for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division majority that the defendant’s trial counsel failed to specifically and adequately preserve the appellate claims. The court emphasized that defense counsel did not properly object to the trial judge’s supplemental instruction. Because the issues were not properly preserved, the Court of Appeals lacked the power to review them. The court noted that “[b]ecause the issues are beyond this Court’s power to review in these circumstances and defendant’s remaining claims are without merit, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division.” The court effectively reinforced the fundamental principle of appellate law that objections must be raised at the trial level to be considered on appeal. This encourages parties to address issues promptly and allows the trial court to correct any errors, preventing unnecessary appeals. It underscores the importance of making specific and timely objections to preserve legal arguments for appellate review. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to raise those arguments on appeal.