New York Law Review

Tag: Contemporaneous Objection Rule

  • People v. Williams, 8 N.Y.3d 854 (2007): Preserving Objections for Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims

    People v. Williams, 8 N.Y.3d 854 (2007)

    To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review, a defendant must make timely and specific objections during the trial; otherwise, the claim is waived unless the misconduct deprived the defendant of due process or a fair trial.

    Summary

    Terrien Williams was convicted of multiple charges, including felony murder and robbery, stemming from a home invasion. On appeal, Williams argued that prosecutorial misconduct during the trial denied him a fair trial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Williams failed to preserve most of his objections to the prosecutor’s conduct because his counsel did not consistently and specifically object at trial. The Court found no deprivation of due process or fair trial, and rejected Williams’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the defense actively participated in the trial through cross-examination and objections.

    Facts

    Joy and Michael Johnson were victims of a home invasion where Michael Johnson was fatally shot. Joy Johnson identified Terrien Williams as the shooter. She identified him on the street, in a photo array, and in lineups. Williams was charged with multiple counts, including intentional murder, felony murder, and robbery. At trial, several instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct occurred during witness examination and closing arguments.

    Procedural History

    Williams was convicted on all counts except intentional murder. He appealed, claiming prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Williams then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct, including denigration of witnesses, disparagement of the alibi, and misrepresentations to the jurors, when most objections were not preserved.

    2. Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to preserve his objections to the vast majority of the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, and the unpreserved conduct did not deprive the defendant of due process or a fair trial.

    2. No, because defense counsel registered numerous objections, conducted rigorous cross-examination, and moved for a mistrial and a new trial, demonstrating zealous advocacy.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of preserving objections to ensure proper appellate review. “Defendant… failed to preserve his objection to the vast majority of these alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct.” The Court noted that although defense counsel made some objections, they were often sustained by the trial court, and no further relief or mistrial was requested. The court reminded the jury that lawyers’ remarks were not evidence. The Court found no evidence that the unpreserved instances of alleged misconduct deprived Williams of due process or a fair trial, which would warrant review despite the lack of preservation. Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that the defense attorney’s actions, including numerous objections and cross-examinations, demonstrated “zealous if not consistent advocacy,” thus negating the claim. The Court seemed to emphasize advocacy on the part of the defense, stating, “As the record reflects zealous if not consistent advocacy, this contention is without merit.” The case reinforces the need for lawyers to contemporaneously object to actions in the courtroom to preserve these issues for appeal.

  • People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise a specific objection at the time of the alleged error, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct it; a new or different objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and assault after shooting his neighbor. During jury deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge, which the court declined, offering them the opportunity to take notes instead. Later, jurors orally requested instructions on intoxication, intent, and other issues. Defendant moved for a mistrial, objecting to the oral questions but not to the note-taking or the lack of opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions beforehand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his appellate claims by not raising timely and specific objections at trial.

    Facts

    The defendant argued with his neighbor about his dog and subsequently shot the neighbor. The jury rejected the defendant’s alibi defense and convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, as well as assault in the second and third degrees. During deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted after a jury trial. He appealed, raising issues related to the jury’s note-taking during supplemental instructions and the court’s handling of oral questions from the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue of the jury taking notes during supplemental instructions when he failed to object at the time the court permitted note-taking and, in fact, objected to a subsequent cautionary instruction on note-taking.

    2. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue that he was denied an opportunity to discuss with the court supplemental instructions before they were given to the jury, when his only objection at trial was that the oral questions did not permit him to preserve the jury’s queries.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant did not object to the note-taking when it occurred and later objected to a cautionary instruction, thereby waiving any claim regarding the need for such instructions.

    2. No, because the defendant’s objection at trial was based on a different ground than the argument he raised on appeal, specifically that he was denied the opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions with the court before they were given.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of raising timely and specific objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review. The court stated that, regarding the note-taking, “at the time the court permitted the jurors to take notes, there was no objection and no request for cautionary instructions.” Furthermore, when the prosecutor requested cautionary instructions, “the defendant objected, thereby waiving any claim he might have had regarding the need for cautionary instructions.”

    Regarding the supplemental instructions, the court cited People v. O’Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, which indicates a defendant should have an opportunity to discuss proposed answers to jurors’ questions. However, the court found that the defendant’s objection at trial only pertained to the lack of a clear record of the jury’s questions, not the denial of an opportunity to confer on the instructions. The court cited People v. DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801, to reinforce the principle that a claim must be properly preserved to be reviewable on appeal. The court reasoned that the purpose of requiring a specific objection is to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error. By failing to raise the specific objection at trial, the defendant deprived the court of that opportunity, and the issue was therefore not preserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals thus reinforced the idea that objections need to be clear and contemporaneous to the error to allow for proper judicial consideration and correction at trial.

  • People v. Allen, 69 N.Y.2d 915 (1987): Preserving Objections to Jury Instructions on Intoxication

    People v. Allen, 69 N.Y.2d 915 (1987)

    A general objection to a jury instruction, without specifying the grounds, is insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Summary

    Defendant Allen was convicted of second-degree murder. On appeal, he argued that the trial court’s jury instruction on intoxication violated his due process rights by improperly shifting the burden of proof or unduly emphasizing credibility. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Allen’s general objection to the instruction at trial was insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review because he did not specifically articulate the basis for his objection to the trial judge. The court emphasized that specific and timely objections are needed to allow the trial court to correct any errors.

    Facts

    The defendant, Barry Allen, was convicted of murder in the second degree. During the trial, jury instructions regarding intoxication were given. The specific facts surrounding the murder itself are not detailed in this memorandum opinion, as the appeal focuses solely on the propriety of the jury instructions.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree in the trial court. He appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erred in denying reinstruction on intoxication in the supplemental charge to the jury when the jury only asked for reinstruction on the elements of the crime charged.
    2. Whether the defendant adequately preserved for appellate review his objection to the primary instruction on intoxication, framed as a violation of due process, when his objection to the Trial Judge was unparticularized.

    Holding

    1. No, because the jury did not request reinstruction on intoxication, but only on the elements of the crime charged.
    2. No, because the defendant’s objection to the intoxication instruction was unparticularized and did not specify the grounds for the objection.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s argument concerning the failure to re-instruct on intoxication was without merit because the jury only requested reinstruction on the elements of the crime. More importantly, the court addressed the defendant’s objection to the initial intoxication instruction. The court emphasized the need for specific objections at trial to allow the trial judge an opportunity to correct any potential errors. Here, the defendant’s objection was deemed too general. The Court stated that the objection was “not so framed as an objection expressed to the Trial Judge, and is not adequately preserved by the unparticularized objection to the intoxication instruction.” By failing to articulate the specific basis for his objection—namely, that the instruction shifted the burden of proof or unduly emphasized credibility—the defendant forfeited his right to raise the issue on appeal. The Court of Appeals effectively reinforced the contemporaneous objection rule, which requires parties to raise objections at the time of the alleged error to preserve the issue for appellate review. This rule prevents “sandbagging” the trial court and ensures fairness to both parties. The court did not elaborate further, issuing a memorandum opinion, implying the issue was well-settled.

  • People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745 (1982): Preserving Repugnant Verdict Claims for Appeal

    56 N.Y.2d 745

    A claim that a verdict is repugnant must be raised at trial to be preserved for appeal, allowing the trial court to correct inconsistencies before the jury is discharged or, in a non-jury trial, by motion to set aside the verdict.

    Summary

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s argument regarding a repugnant verdict was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised at trial. The Court emphasized that alleged errors, including claims of repugnant verdicts, must be brought to the trial court’s attention so they can be addressed and corrected during the trial. In jury trials, this must occur before the jury is discharged. In non-jury trials, the issue can be raised via a motion to set aside or modify the verdict under CPL 330.30. The failure to raise the issue at trial prevents appellate review.

    Facts

    The specific facts of the underlying criminal case are not detailed in this opinion, as the appeal focuses solely on the procedural issue of preserving a repugnant verdict claim. The critical fact is that the defendant argued on appeal that the verdict was repugnant, but this argument had not been presented to the trial court.

    Procedural History

    The case proceeded to the Appellate Division, which issued an order. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reviewed the submissions and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, based on the defendant’s failure to preserve the repugnant verdict claim at trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant must raise an objection to a potentially repugnant verdict at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Holding

    Yes, because alleged errors must be raised at a time when they can be corrected at trial; failing to do so forfeits the right to raise the issue on appeal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the purpose of requiring contemporaneous objections is to allow the trial court to correct errors during the trial itself. This prevents unnecessary appeals and promotes judicial efficiency. Regarding repugnant verdicts, the Court stated, “Thus in jury cases any claim that the verdict is repugnant must be made before the jury is discharged… This permits the court to resubmit the matter to the jury to obtain a consistent verdict, even if that may require changing an ‘acquittal’, on one or more counts, to a conviction.” In non-jury cases, the court can address the issue through a motion to set aside or modify the verdict. The court distinguished this case from People v. Carter, noting that Carter involved no error of law that would allow the trial court to reconsider its verdict. Here, a properly preserved claim of repugnancy presents such an issue of law. The failure to preserve the issue deprives the appellate court of the opportunity to review it. The court emphasizes the importance of raising errors at trial so that they can be corrected, stating that this is a general rule of appellate practice. The ability to correct the verdict avoids the need for potentially costly and time-consuming appeals and retrials.

  • People v. Brown, 46 N.Y.2d 953 (1979): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Brown, 46 N.Y.2d 953 (1979)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must obtain a definitive ruling from the trial court, either by requesting a curative instruction or moving for a mistrial after an objection is sustained.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of a crime related to a cocaine sale. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in preventing him from learning the identity of a confidential informant and that the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. Because the defendant did not seek a judicial ruling after the prosecution objected to revealing the informant’s identity and did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial after the prosecutor’s comments, the appellate court was precluded from considering these alleged errors.

    Facts

    An informant arranged a cocaine sale and subsequently provided information to the police that led to the defendant’s arrest.

    During the trial, defense counsel attempted to elicit the identity of the informant from a People’s witness.

    The District Attorney objected, and the trial judge sustained the objection, preventing the witness from revealing the informant’s name.

    During summation, the prosecutor made comments to which defense counsel objected. The trial judge sustained the objection and directed the prosecutor to refrain from making similar statements.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

    The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant properly preserved for appellate review the issue of the trial court’s refusal to compel disclosure of the informant’s identity.

    2. Whether the defendant properly preserved for appellate review the issue of the prosecutor’s allegedly improper summation remarks.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to seek a judicial ruling on the question after the District Attorney’s objection was sustained.

    2. No, because the defendant failed to request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial after the trial judge sustained the objection to the prosecutor’s remarks.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that when the District Attorney objected to revealing the informant’s identity, it was the defendant’s responsibility to seek a judicial ruling if he believed the disclosure would be helpful to his case. Failing to do so precluded him from raising the issue on appeal. The court cited CPL 470.35, subd 1 and 470.05, subd 2 in support of this conclusion.

    Regarding the prosecutor’s summation remarks, the court noted that the trial judge sustained the defense counsel’s objection and directed the prosecutor to stop making similar statements. However, the defense counsel did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial. The Court of Appeals emphasized that, without such a request, no error of law was preserved for appellate review.

    The court implicitly relied on the principle that a trial court must be given the opportunity to correct any alleged errors before they can be raised on appeal. A simple objection is insufficient; the party must seek further action by the court to remedy the perceived error.

    The court’s decision highlights the importance of contemporaneous objections and the need to seek definitive rulings from the trial court to preserve issues for appeal. As the court suggested, a defendant must do more than simply object; they must actively seek a remedy from the trial court, such as a curative instruction or a mistrial, to preserve the issue for appellate review.