85 N.Y.2d 923 (1995)

To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection during trial.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired after a motorcycle accident that resulted in his wife’s death. He was acquitted of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the criminally negligent homicide conviction and that the relation-back testimony regarding his blood alcohol level was inadmissible. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these issues for review because he did not make timely and specific objections at trial. The Court also found no merit to the defendant’s other claims.

Facts

The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident resulting in his wife’s death. The defendant was subsequently indicted for vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Following the accident, the defendant’s blood alcohol level was tested.

Procedural History

The defendant was tried before a jury. The jury acquitted him of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence but convicted him of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the criminally negligent homicide conviction were preserved for appellate review.

2. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the admissibility of relation-back testimony concerning his blood alcohol level was preserved for appellate review.

3. Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to certain evidentiary rulings.

Holding

1. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

2. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the admissibility of the relation-back testimony.

3. No, the Court found no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that because the defendant failed to make a timely specific objection at trial to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for criminally negligent homicide and to the admissibility of relation-back testimony regarding the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident, these points were not preserved for the Court’s review. The court cited People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, and People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, to support this holding. The court emphasized the importance of raising objections at trial to give the lower court an opportunity to address the issues. Regarding the other evidentiary rulings, the Court found no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial. The Court noted that testimony regarding the defendant’s attempts to avoid giving an adequate breath sample was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt, especially considering the trial court’s limiting instructions. Furthermore, any error in reporting the defendant’s blood alcohol level beyond the second decimal point was deemed harmless because the defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired, which does not require a specific blood alcohol level. The court cited Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(c). Finally, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that he was not given an individualized sentence. The court in People v. Gray stated, “The main purposes of the preservation requirement, informing the court of the objection as well as affording the opportunity to cure the error, and of the contemporaneous objection rule, are advanced by requiring that the basis of the objection be apparent, either from its face, or from the context.”