New York Law Review

Tag: Objection

  • People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 913 (1981): Preserving Objections to Jury Instructions for Appeal

    People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 913 (1981)

    To preserve an objection to a jury instruction for appellate review, counsel must distinctly state the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection at the time the instruction is given.

    Summary

    The defendant appealed his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon, arguing that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on the presumption of intent was erroneous. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to properly preserve the issue for review because he did not object to the instruction when it was initially given. His later comments during a colloquy with the court were based on an inaccurate assumption, and he never explicitly raised the error he now asserted on appeal.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. During jury instructions, the trial court stated, “it is a fundamental rule of evidence that a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.” The defendant did not object to this instruction at the time it was given.

    During deliberations, the jury requested further instructions, including definitions of “reasonable doubt” and “intent.” The court repeated the challenged instruction on presumed intent. This time, defense counsel engaged in a colloquy, assuming the court had already charged that the presumption could be overcome by evidence to the contrary. Counsel then requested a charge that the presumption had been overcome in this case, which the trial court denied.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed the conviction, arguing the jury instruction on intent was erroneous. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant preserved his objection to the jury instruction on the presumption of intent for appellate review, given that he did not object when the instruction was initially given and his later comments were based on an inaccurate assumption about prior instructions.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to register a protest to the asserted error at any time. Defense counsel advanced the inaccurate assumption that instructions concerning overcoming the presumption had already been included. Rather than invite the court’s attention to the omission, defense counsel, in effect, assured the court that there had been no such omission.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection. The court noted that the defendant did not object to the instruction when it was initially given. When the instruction was repeated, defense counsel’s comments were based on the inaccurate assumption that the jury had already been instructed on how to overcome the presumption. The court stated that “No protest, however, was registered to this asserted error at any time. It was defense counsel who advanced the inaccurate assumption that instructions with reference to overcoming the presumption had been included. He premised his request to charge on that assumption, and the trial court denied the request on the same hypothesis. Instead of inviting the court’s attention to the omission to charge with respect to overcoming the presumption, defense counsel in effect assured the court that there had been no such omission.” Because the defendant did not clearly object to the lack of instruction on overcoming the presumption, the issue was not preserved for review.

  • Matter of Sowa v. Looney, 23 N.Y.2d 329 (1968): Preserving Evidentiary Objections in Administrative Hearings

    Matter of Sowa v. Looney, 23 N.Y.2d 329 (1968)

    In administrative hearings, a party must make a specific objection on constitutional grounds to the admission of evidence to preserve the issue for judicial review, even if the evidence is later suppressed in a related criminal proceeding.

    Summary

    Sowa, a beer licensee, faced license cancellation proceedings for possessing a loaded gun and permitting gambling on her premises. During the hearing, evidence of gambling was admitted over a general objection. Subsequently, this evidence was suppressed in a criminal court. The Appellate Division annulled the Authority’s determination, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Sowa’s attorney failed to specifically object to the evidence on constitutional grounds during the administrative hearing, the issue of admissibility was not preserved for review, even though the evidence was later suppressed.

    Facts

    Patrolman Lombardo, acting on an informant’s tip, observed individuals handing money and slips of paper to Pablo Moreira, who worked behind the counter in Sowa’s store. The officer witnessed Sowa standing nearby during one of these transactions. Based on a search warrant, the officer arrested Moreira and Sowa on gambling charges and discovered a loaded pistol beneath the cash register, leading to Sowa’s arrest for gun possession. Sowa denied observing any gambling and disclaimed ownership of the gun. Moreira initially denied possessing betting slips, but later admitted police found one at his residence.

    Procedural History

    The State Liquor Authority canceled Sowa’s off-premises beer license based on the evidence presented at the hearing. Subsequently, a suppression hearing in Criminal Court resulted in the suppression of the gambling evidence. The Appellate Division annulled the Authority’s determination, relying on Matter of Firm’s Liq. Shop v. State Liq. Auth., but the Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the Authority’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division erred in annulling the State Liquor Authority’s determination canceling the petitioner’s beer license when the petitioner failed to make a specific objection on constitutional grounds to the admission of evidence at the administrative hearing, despite the evidence being subsequently suppressed in a criminal proceeding.

    Holding

    Yes, because to preserve an issue regarding the admissibility of evidence for judicial review, a specific objection on constitutional and legal grounds must be made during the administrative hearing; a general objection is insufficient.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of raising specific objections during administrative hearings to allow the hearing officer to address the constitutional and legal issues at the time the evidence is presented. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Firm’s Liq. Shop, where a specific objection had been raised. The Court stated, “in order to preserve on appeal ‘The constitutional and legal issue on admissibility of evidence’, a specific objection on constitutional and legal grounds must be made during the trial or hearing.” Because Sowa’s attorney only made a general objection, the issue of the evidence’s admissibility was not properly preserved for appellate review. The court also noted that the fact the evidence had not yet been suppressed at the time of the hearing did not excuse the failure to make a specific objection. The court reasoned that requiring specific objections is necessary in administrative hearings for the same reasons they are necessary in civil or criminal trials.