People v. Leisner, 73 N.Y.2d 140 (1989)

In a conspiracy trial, a court must instruct the jury on the statute of limitations and the possibility of multiple conspiracies if the evidence reasonably supports such a finding; failure to do so constitutes reversible error.

Summary

Morris Leisner and Max Marx were convicted of conspiracy for attempting to force tenants from rent-controlled apartments. The prosecution argued their actions constituted a single conspiracy. The defense countered with arguments that there were several conspiracies and that many actions fell outside the statute of limitations. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the possibility of multiple conspiracies or the need for a timely overt act. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in failing to provide these instructions when the evidence reasonably supported the possibility of multiple conspiracies and the statute of limitations defense, thus requiring a new trial.

Facts

Leisner and Marx, landlords in Manhattan, were accused of conspiring to drive out rent-controlled tenants to increase their buildings’ resale value. They allegedly hired Lender and Lambert, who used intimidation tactics, including placing drug addicts and criminals in the buildings. The prosecution argued that these activities were part of a single conspiracy, even though the buildings were owned individually or jointly. The indictment listed 86 overt acts, most occurring before December 14, 1979.

Procedural History

Leisner and Marx were indicted and convicted solely on conspiracy charges in the trial court. They appealed, arguing the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the possibility of multiple conspiracies and the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the trial court’s failure to provide the requested instructions constituted reversible error, and ordered a new trial.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that they must find at least one overt act within the statute of limitations to convict the defendants of conspiracy.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the possibility of multiple conspiracies, given the evidence presented.

Holding

1. Yes, because establishing a timely overt act is necessary to satisfy both the statute of limitations and the elements of the crime.
2. Yes, because a multiple conspiracy charge is required whenever a reasonable view of the evidence supports the possibility of more than one conspiracy.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found the trial court’s failure to provide a statute of limitations instruction was reversible error because most alleged overt acts occurred outside the statutory period. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove a timely overt act to secure a conspiracy conviction. The Court dismissed the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the defense waived this argument, citing People v. Le Mieux, stating the defense did not show a “clear intent to waive a position already preserved.”

Regarding multiple conspiracies, the Court acknowledged the risks of prejudice when the prosecution combines several agreements into a single conspiracy charge. Quoting Judge Hand, the court noted conspiracy is the “darling of the modern prosecutor’s nursery.” The court adopted the federal approach requiring a multiple conspiracy charge “whenever the possibility of more than one conspiracy is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence.” The Court found that the testimony presented a reasonable basis for the jury to conclude that any conspiracies were narrower than the single overarching one charged, thus requiring a new trial with proper instructions.

The court explained the prosecution’s theory was a “wheel conspiracy” and quoted Kotteakos v. United States stating, “a single conspiracy cannot be found unless there is a ‘rim of the wheel to enclose the spokes’”. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to find a single conspiracy. Thus, the court ordered a reversal and a new trial.