People v. Rodriguez, 2 N.Y.3d 808 (2004)
A general objection to evidence, without specifying the grounds, is insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s general objection to expert testimony, without specifying the basis (e.g., hearsay), failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The defense attorney made a general objection during the trial, which the trial court sustained, providing a limiting instruction. The defense did not object to the instruction’s adequacy, nor did they lodge a specific hearsay objection to further testimony. Because the Appellate Division correctly determined that the Supreme Court’s CPL 330.30(1) motion grant was in error, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order reversing the Supreme Court’s order and reinstating the guilty verdict.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
During the trial, an expert witness provided testimony.
Defense counsel made a general objection to a portion of the expert’s statement.
The trial court sustained the objection and provided a limiting instruction to the jury.
Defense counsel did not object to the adequacy or accuracy of the limiting instruction.
Defense counsel did not specifically object to the expert’s further testimony on hearsay grounds.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s CPL 330.30(1) motion, which allows a court to set aside a verdict based on errors during the trial.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s order, denied the defendant’s motion, and reinstated the guilty verdict.
The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a general objection to expert testimony, without specifying the basis for the objection (e.g., hearsay), is sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Holding
No, because a party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the established principle that a general objection is insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. The court emphasized the need for specific objections to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct any potential errors. The court cited People v. Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 (1994) in its decision.
Because the defense counsel made only a general objection and failed to specify the grounds (e.g., hearsay), the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. The limiting instruction given by the trial court was not challenged for adequacy. Therefore, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s CPL 330.30(1) motion on a ground that would not have required reversal or modification as a matter of law by an appellate court.