People v. Feerick, 69 N.Y.2d 844 (1987)
To properly preserve a claim of evidentiary insufficiency for appellate review, a defendant must specifically raise the alleged deficiency before the trial court, thereby alerting the court to the specific element the prosecution purportedly failed to prove.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for bribe receiving and official misconduct. The defendant, a former NYC detective, argued on appeal that the prosecution failed to establish a key element of official misconduct: a duty to arrest the drug dealer during the criminal transaction. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to properly preserve this argument for appeal because his objection at trial only contested whether he received a benefit, not whether he had a duty to act. Therefore, the argument was not properly preserved for appellate review.
Facts
The defendant, a former New York City detective, introduced a known drug dealer to a fellow police officer. The defendant was present when the drug dealer bribed the officer to protect the dealer’s drug operations from police investigation. The defendant was subsequently convicted of bribe receiving and official misconduct.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of bribe receiving and official misconduct after a jury trial. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a necessary element of the crime of official misconduct. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the claim that the People failed to establish the “duty element” of official misconduct under Penal Law § 195.00, given that the defendant’s objection at trial focused solely on the lack of evidence that he received a benefit.
Holding
No, because the defendant argued before the trial court only that there was no evidence that he had received a benefit, and this contention was inadequate to alert the trial court that the defendant was urging insufficiency based on the entirely distinct claim that he had no clearly inherent duty but only a discretionary responsibility to arrest the drug dealer during the criminal transaction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that, to preserve an issue for appellate review, the objection must be specific enough to bring the alleged error to the trial court’s attention. The Court stated that the defendant’s argument before the trial court only addressed that there was no evidence that he had received a benefit. The Court reasoned that this argument was inadequate to alert the trial court that the defendant was urging insufficiency based on the entirely distinct claim that he had no clearly inherent duty but only a discretionary responsibility to arrest the drug dealer during the criminal transaction. The Court relied on the principle articulated in People v. Gomez, 67 NY2d 843. Because the defendant’s objection at trial was focused on a different element of the crime, the Court concluded that the argument concerning the “duty element” was unpreserved. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court ruling.