People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 118 (1995)
When a court officer’s unauthorized conduct in a jury room does not usurp the court’s authority and the court takes corrective action, a defendant must object to preserve any error for appeal; absent a timely objection, the error is considered curable and cured.
Summary
Starling was convicted of second-degree murder. During jury deliberations, a court officer, at the jury’s request, demonstrated how the murder weapon (a bayonet) fit into its sheath, without the court’s authorization. The trial court informed both sides and, with the defendant’s consent, instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration. The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s failure to object to the demonstration, instead agreeing to a curative instruction, meant the issue was not preserved for appeal. The court distinguished this case from instances where a judge delegates essential judicial functions, emphasizing that the trial court retained control and addressed the impropriety.
Facts
Defendant was charged with murdering his ex-girlfriend’s father by stabbing him with a bayonet.
Conflicting accounts were presented at trial: the prosecution argued the stabbing was deliberate, while the defendant claimed self-defense, stating the deceased seized the bayonet first.
During deliberations, the jury requested the bayonet and its sheath.
A court officer allowed the jury to handle the bayonet, and demonstrated how it could be drawn from the sheath while it was in his waistband, but the court officer refused to allow the jurors to experiment with the bayonet themselves.
The court officer told the court about the demonstration, and the court informed both sides.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, finding the defense waived any issue by agreeing to a curative instruction, and rejecting the argument that a mode of proceedings error occurred.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order denying CPL 440.10 relief, determining the court officer’s conduct was ministerial and did not usurp the trial court’s authority.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the court officer’s unauthorized demonstration in the jury room constituted a “mode of proceedings” error that need not be preserved for appellate review.
Holding
No, because the trial court took appropriate action to address the unauthorized demonstration and the defendant consented to a curative instruction instead of objecting or moving for a mistrial, the issue was not preserved for appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished the case from People v. Ahmed, where a judge improperly delegated judicial functions. In this case, the trial court retained control of the proceedings and addressed the court officer’s impropriety by informing both sides and offering a curative instruction.
The Court relied on People v. Bonaparte, where a court officer’s communication with the jury was deemed ministerial and any error was unpreserved because of the failure to object. The court found the present case even stronger for affirmance because the court officer’s actions were unauthorized.
The Court emphasized that the defendant had the opportunity to object to the demonstration but instead agreed to the curative instruction. The court stated, “[I]n all, the impropriety was protestable but unprotested, curable and cured.”
The Court found that the court officer’s actions did not usurp the court’s authority, distinguishing this case from People v. Khalek, where a court officer improperly instructed the jury leading them to change their verdict. The Court emphasized the trial court retained control of the trial.
The Court reiterated that preservation is essential for appellate review, unless the error goes to the essential validity of the trial.