6 N.Y.3d 585 (2006)

A defendant’s failure to object to a trial court’s preliminary jury instructions before the trial court results in the claim being unpreserved for appellate review.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of robbery and criminal possession of stolen property for forcibly stealing body wash from a pharmacy. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by instructing potential jurors on the elements of the crimes during voir dire. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that because the defendant failed to object to the preliminary jury instructions before the trial court, the claim was not preserved for appellate review. The Court also found the defendant’s remaining contentions to be without merit.

Facts

A security officer observed the defendant concealing two bottles of body wash in his pants at a pharmacy. The security officer attempted to stop the defendant from leaving the store. The defendant punched the security officer twice in the jaw and shoved him against a wall. The defendant was then charged with robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the third degree in the trial court. He was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 1/2 to 5 years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by prematurely instructing potential jurors during voir dire on the elements of the crimes. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court committed a “mode of proceedings” error by instructing the jury at the outset as to the elements of the crimes, and whether the defendant’s claim is preserved for review if no objection was made before the trial court.

Holding

No, because the trial court’s preliminary instructions did not constitute a “mode of proceedings” error that went to the essential validity of the process and was so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted. No, because the defendant failed to object before the trial court, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s preliminary instruction on the elements of the crimes did not constitute a “mode of proceedings” error that would excuse the requirement for a timely objection. The Court cited People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765, 770 (1996), stating that a mode of proceedings error goes to the essential validity of the process and is so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted. Because the defendant failed to object to the instruction before the trial court, the claim was unpreserved for appellate review. The Court cited People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10 (1995) in support of the preservation rule. The court summarily dismissed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including a claim regarding the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, as without merit.