New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Fellman

  • People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 918 (1974): Preserving Objections to Jury Instructions

    People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 918 (1974)

    A defendant’s timely written request for a specific jury instruction, accurately reflecting the law, preserves the objection to the court’s failure to provide that instruction, even if not explicitly reiterated after the charge.

    Summary

    Fellman was convicted of perjury. He appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the corroboration required for perjury convictions as per CPL 210.50. Fellman’s attorney had submitted a written request for a specific jury instruction on corroboration, but the court did not give the instruction. The New York Court of Appeals held that the written request sufficiently preserved the objection, even though it wasn’t reiterated verbatim after the jury charge, and reversed the perjury conviction due to the omission of the critical corroboration instruction. The court found the error not harmless.

    Facts

    The defendant, Fellman, was prosecuted for perjury. During the trial, Fellman’s attorney submitted a written request to the trial court asking the court to instruct the jury that the falsity of the alleged statement of defendant that he met Tut Robinson on East Falls Street may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. This request was timely.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Fellman. Fellman appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to provide the requested jury instruction. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Fellman appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant’s timely written request for a specific jury instruction, that accurately reflects the law, is sufficient to preserve an objection to the court’s failure to provide that instruction, even if the request is not explicitly reiterated or an exception taken after the charge.

    Holding

    Yes, because the written request, if sufficiently faithful to the law, preserves the objection under CPL 470.05, regardless of whether a literal exception was registered. The court stated that by submitting the written request, “defendant must be ‘deemed to have thereby protested the court’s ultimate * * * failure to * * * instruct’ sufficiently ‘to raise a question of law * * * regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered’ (CPL 470.05).”

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 470.05 deems a written request for a jury instruction as sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, provided the request accurately reflects the law. The court emphasized the importance of the corroboration rule in perjury cases. The court also found the defense counsel’s general reiteration of all “previously requested” requests sufficient to preserve the issue, even though the corroboration request was not explicitly mentioned in the post-charge colloquy. The court stated, “Taken as a whole, without more, this hardly demonstrated a clear intent to waive a position already preserved with respect to a request on which the verdict could very well have turned.” Because the requested charge related to a central element of the crime (perjury), the omission was not harmless error. The policy consideration is to ensure defendants receive proper jury instructions on critical elements of the charges against them and to give effect to CPL 470.05, lessening burdens on defense counsel to repetitively reiterate points already raised.

  • People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 158 (1974): People’s Right to Appeal Dismissals in Non-Jury Trials

    People v. Fellman, 35 N.Y.2d 158 (1974)

    The People have the right to appeal a trial order of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases when the dismissal is based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence.

    Summary

    These consolidated cases address whether the People can appeal a trial order of dismissal in a non-jury trial. In Fellman, the defendant was indicted for perjury. At the close of the People’s case, the trial court granted a trial order of dismissal, finding the evidence legally insufficient. In Sabella, the defendant requested a judgment of acquittal after a non-jury trial, which the court granted. The Court of Appeals held that the People may appeal a trial order of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases when the dismissal is based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. However, the court found that in Sabella, the defendant was acquitted on the merits, precluding appeal. In Fellman, the court found the dismissal was based on legal insufficiency and thus appealable, reinstating the indictment.

    Facts

    In Fellman:

    • Fellman, an architect, testified before a grand jury investigating corruption.
    • He stated that payments to Wingler, a health department employee, were legitimate fees for engineering services.
    • He specifically claimed a $1,000 check related to an alternate pool plan due to a soil failure.
    • At trial, Roberts, the pool project designer, testified there was no soil failure and the alternate plan was received earlier. Roberts further testified that Fellman told him that the payments were payoffs.
    • The People presented additional testimony contradicting Fellman’s claims.

    In Sabella, the defendant was subpoenaed before a grand jury. He refused to answer questions, claiming illegal wiretap evidence was being used. He was subsequently indicted for contempt.

    Procedural History

    In Fellman:

    • The trial court granted Fellman’s motion for a trial order of dismissal.
    • The Appellate Division was divided on whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated Roberts’ testimony, leaving the trial court’s order standing.

    In Sabella:

    • The trial court granted the defendant’s request for a judgment of acquittal.
    • The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s appeal, holding that no appeal lies from a judgment on the merits in a criminal case.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the People may appeal from a trial order of dismissal in a non-jury case.

    2. Whether the trial courts in Fellman and Sabella dismissed on the law or acquitted the defendants on the merits.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because CPL 450.20(2) applies to both jury and non-jury cases, authorizing the People to appeal a trial order of dismissal when a charge is dismissed due to insufficient evidence as a matter of law.

    2. In Fellman, the court dismissed on the law, but erred in doing so. In Sabella, the court acquitted the defendant on the merits.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that CPL 450.20(2) allows the People to appeal trial orders of dismissal in both jury and non-jury cases. The Court acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing legal from factual determinations in non-jury trials but stated that this is a normal part of the appellate process. Regarding Sabella, the Court determined that the defendant requested an acquittal, not a trial order of dismissal, and the court’s finding of insufficient proof of intent was based on the factual determination that the defendant acted in good faith, indicating an acquittal on the merits. The court stated, “Here the defendant was clearly acquitted on the merits and it matters not that the court chose to characterize the holding as a dismissal on the law, which the defendant in any event had not requested.” Allowing an appeal in Sabella would violate the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy.

    In Fellman, the defendant explicitly requested a trial order of dismissal based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. The court held that, for the purpose of the motion, all evidence favoring the People is deemed credible. The finding of insufficiency turned on the legal conclusion that the circumstantial evidence of corroboration in a perjury case must meet the standard applicable to cases based wholly on circumstantial proof. According to CPL 70.10(1), legally sufficient evidence is “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged…” Therefore, the People have the right to appeal the dismissal. The court also clarified the standard for corroborating perjury testimony, stating that “the circumstantial evidence serves only to corroborate the direct testimony of a single witness, it need not exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt.” The court found that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case of perjury.

    The court quoted the Commission Staff Comment to Proposed CPL 150.20, noting that the change allowing the People to appeal “stems from the apparent injustice of denying the People any remedy when the trial court dismisses a charge during trial upon the basis of an erroneous determination of law that the trial evidence does not establish a prima facie case.”