People v. Yates, 98 N.Y.2d 462 (2002)

In New York, when a court submits multiple offenses in the alternative to a jury, it must instruct the jury to acquit the defendant of the greater offense before considering any lesser-included offense; failure to provide this “acquit-first” instruction constitutes reversible error, barring retrial on the greater offense due to double jeopardy principles.

Summary

Defendant was indicted for second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter for the strangulation death of his girlfriend. At trial, the judge also submitted second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide as lesser included offenses, but refused the prosecution’s request for an “acquit-first” instruction as mandated by People v. Boettcher. The jury convicted Defendant of criminally negligent homicide, implying acquittal on the higher charges. The People sought retrial on the manslaughter charge, arguing the jury instructions violated Boettcher. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision that the trial court’s failure to provide the “acquit-first” instruction barred retrial on the manslaughter charge, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the Boettcher rule.

Facts

Defendant was indicted for the strangulation death of his girlfriend. Initially, he denied involvement, but later admitted to choking her, claiming it was an accident while he was drunk and trying to quiet her. At trial, the prosecution argued that Defendant intentionally caused serious injury and showed depraved indifference to her life. The defense maintained it was accidental.

Procedural History

The trial court submitted second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide to the jury. The prosecution requested a Boettcher “acquit-first” instruction, which the trial court denied. After the jury convicted Defendant of criminally negligent homicide, the People moved for retrial on the manslaughter charge, which was denied. The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s Article 78 proceeding but stated the trial court erred in refusing the Boettcher instruction. On direct appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, holding that double jeopardy barred retrial. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with the “acquit-first” format as required by People v. Boettcher when submitting multiple offenses in the alternative.

2. Whether a conviction for criminally negligent homicide bars retrial on a greater charge of first-degree manslaughter when the “acquit-first” instruction was not given.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Boettcher “acquit-first” instruction is mandatory under New York law when submitting multiple offenses in the alternative.

2. Yes, because under CPL 300.50(4), a conviction on a lesser-included offense is deemed an acquittal of every greater offense submitted, barring retrial on the greater offense due to double jeopardy principles.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the mandatory nature of the “acquit-first” instruction established in People v. Boettcher. The court explained that CPL 300.50(4) deems a conviction on a lesser-included offense as an acquittal on the greater offense. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to provide the Boettcher instruction had significant consequences, preventing a retrial on the first-degree manslaughter charge. The court rejected the argument that criminally negligent homicide was not a lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter, citing precedent. The Court stated, “[w]henever the court submits two or more offenses in the alternative pursuant to this section, it must instruct the jury that it may render a verdict of guilty with respect to any one of such offenses, depending upon its findings of fact, but that it may not render a verdict of guilty with respect to more than one. A verdict of guilty of any such offense is not deemed an acquittal of any lesser offense submitted, but is deemed an acquittal of every greater offense submitted.” The court declined to overrule prior case law to cure the trial court’s error, indicating that the failure to follow established precedent had resulted in a non-remediable situation. The decision underscores the importance of strictly adhering to the Boettcher rule to avoid jeopardizing the prosecution’s ability to retry a defendant on more serious charges.