People v. Dekle, 56 N.Y.2d 835 (1982)

To preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must make a specific objection or motion at trial, clearly stating the grounds for the objection; failure to do so forfeits the right to raise the issue on appeal.

Summary

Dekle was convicted of robbery. On appeal, he argued that the element of immediacy required for robbery conviction was not proven. However, his initial motion for dismissal at trial focused solely on the mechanics of the knife display, omitting the immediacy argument. Because the defendant did not specifically object to the jury charge regarding the meaning of “immediately,” he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that the defendant could not raise a new argument on appeal that was not properly presented and preserved at trial.

Facts

Following a taking, Dekle displayed a knife. At trial, Dekle’s motion for a trial order of dismissal argued the element of immediacy was not proved because the knife was closed, required two hands to open, and Dekle had only one hand free.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the element of immediacy. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant, by failing to specifically object to the jury charge or raise the issue of immediacy in his initial motion for a trial order of dismissal, preserved the issue for appellate review.

Holding

No, because the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal only addressed the mechanics of the knife and not the timing, and because he failed to object to the jury instruction. Therefore, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was based on a different argument than the one he raised on appeal. The Court stated that the motion argued “that the element of immediacy required for conviction of robbery was not proved because the knife displayed was closed, required two hands to open and defendant had but one hand free.” The Court emphasized that the defendant did not object to the jury instruction defining “immediately.” Therefore, the court reasoned, the defendant failed to preserve his argument regarding immediacy for appellate review, as required by CPL 470.05(2). The court further reasoned that allowing defendants to raise unpreserved issues on appeal would encourage “gamesmanship” and waste judicial resources. The court emphasized the importance of specific objections at trial to ensure that errors are addressed promptly and efficiently.