90 N.Y.2d 877 (1997)
A defendant’s claim of justification (self-defense) requires a reasonable belief that the purported victim was about to use deadly physical force against the defendant; an objection to the jury instruction must be specific to preserve the issue for appeal.
Summary
Richard Bond was convicted of second-degree murder and related charges after firing a rifle at a group of people, resulting in the death of an innocent bystander. Bond claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed individuals in the group were about to draw weapons. The trial court instructed the jury on the justification defense. Bond appealed, arguing that the instruction was erroneous because it implied the justification defense only applied if Bond reasonably believed the bystander was about to use deadly force against him. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Bond’s general objection to the jury instruction was insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal and that his sentencing claim lacked merit. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for specific objections to jury instructions to preserve appellate review.
Facts
Richard Bond fired a rifle at a group of people standing in front of a grocery store.
A stray bullet fatally injured Lloyd Pearsol, an innocent bystander inside the store.
Bond claimed he fired the rifle because he believed individuals in the group outside the store were gesturing as if to draw their weapons.
The trial court charged the jury on the defense of justification at the request of both sides.
Procedural History
Bond was charged with second-degree murder, first-degree reckless endangerment, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
Following a jury trial, Bond was convicted.
Bond appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction.
Bond appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Bond’s general objection to the trial court’s justification instruction was sufficient to preserve his appellate claim that the instruction was erroneous.
Holding
No, because defense counsel’s brief objection at trial to the court’s justification instruction was not sufficient to preserve defendant’s present appellate claim.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that Bond’s objection at trial was too general to preserve the specific argument he raised on appeal regarding the justification defense. The court emphasized that a specific objection is necessary to bring the alleged error to the trial court’s attention and allow for correction. Because Bond failed to specifically object to the instruction on the ground that it improperly focused on the bystander’s (Pearsol’s) actions rather than the actions of those Bond claimed to be acting in self-defense against, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. The court also summarily dismissed Bond’s challenge to his consecutive sentences as meritless.