People v. Rouse, 79 N.Y.2d 934 (1992)

A trial court is not obligated to instruct the jury to disregard a defendant’s restraints (e.g., shackles) if the defendant does not request such an instruction, provided there was a reasonable, articulated basis on the record for the restraints.

Summary

Rouse was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by requiring him to appear before the jury in leg shackles without instructing the jurors to disregard them. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while a defendant generally should not be physically restrained before the jury without a reasonable, articulated basis, and while a curative instruction should be given, the court is not obligated to give such an instruction sua sponte if the defendant doesn’t request it. Here, a reasonable basis existed, and the defendant did not request the instruction.

Facts

The defendant was on trial for murder and attempted murder. Before jury selection, defense counsel requested the removal of the defendant’s handcuffs and leg irons. The trial court ordered the handcuffs removed but denied the request to remove leg irons, citing the defendant’s prior escape attempts and security concerns within the courtroom.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the trial court of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in requiring him to appear in shackles and failing to instruct the jury to disregard them. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to appear before the jury in leg shackles.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jurors to disregard the defendant’s leg shackles, even though the defendant did not request such an instruction.

Holding

1. No, because the trial court articulated a reasonable basis on the record for the restraints.
2. No, because the court is under no obligation to provide such an instruction sua sponte when the defendant does not request it.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a defendant should not be physically restrained before the jury unless there is a reasonable, articulated basis for doing so. The court noted that in this case, the trial court expressed concerns about the defendant’s prior escape attempts and the courtroom’s security, which justified the restraints. The court distinguished the cases cited by the defendant arguing for a sua sponte instruction. Regarding the failure to instruct the jury to disregard the shackles, the court acknowledged the general rule that such an instruction should be given to minimize prejudice. However, the court also recognized that a defendant might strategically choose not to request such an instruction, believing it would draw unnecessary attention to the restraints. The court observed, “Consequently, where a defendant fails to request an instruction regarding his restraints, a court is under no obligation to instruct the jury to disregard them.” The court thus declined to impose a mandatory requirement for a sua sponte instruction, leaving the tactical decision to the defendant. The court found no other grounds for reversal.