New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Lipton

  • People v. Lipton, 68 N.Y.2d 363 (1986): Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

    People v. Lipton, 68 N.Y.2d 363 (1986)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a specific objection or request must be made at trial to alert the court to the alleged error and allow for its correction.

    Summary

    The defendant, Lipton, was convicted, and on appeal, argued that the prosecution failed to sufficiently corroborate accomplice testimony. He claimed a witness, Rogers, was either an accomplice as a matter of law or, alternatively, that if the jury found Rogers to be an accomplice as a matter of fact, there was insufficient corroborating evidence. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that because the defendant failed to raise these specific arguments at trial, the issues were not preserved for appellate review. A clear request to the trial court to instruct the jury to acquit if they found Rogers to be an accomplice would have been necessary to preserve the issue.

    Facts

    The key fact is that the defendant failed to explicitly argue at trial that the witness Melvin Rogers was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration, nor did he request a specific jury instruction regarding acquittal if the jury found Rogers to be an accomplice.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to corroborate accomplice testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s claim that the prosecution failed to sufficiently corroborate accomplice testimony, specifically concerning the witness Melvin Rogers, was preserved for appellate review, given that these specific arguments and a request for a particular jury instruction were not presented to the trial court.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant did not present these specific arguments or request the specific jury instruction at trial, the issue was not preserved for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of issue preservation at the trial level. The court stated that a defendant must alert the trial court to the precise error alleged to allow for correction at trial or proper preservation for appeal. The court stated, “A simple and clear request to have the court charge to acquit the defendant if the jury finds that Melvin Rogers was an accomplice, would have alerted the court to the precise point, and would have led to a correction of the error at trial, or preservation of the point for appellate review.” The court distinguished the case from situations where the error is so extraordinary that preservation is not required, finding that this case did not meet that high threshold. By failing to make the specific arguments and request the specific jury instruction, the defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address and potentially correct the alleged error. The court referenced the dissenting opinion in People v. Doyle (304 NY 120), clarifying that the dissent’s view on preservation was not a binding interpretation of the majority’s holding.

  • People v. Lipton, 54 N.Y.2d 340 (1981): Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance Requires More Than Writing an Illegal Prescription

    People v. Lipton, 54 N.Y.2d 340 (1981)

    Under New York law, a physician’s act of unlawfully issuing prescriptions, even with knowledge they will be used for illicit drug trafficking, does not by itself constitute a criminal sale of a controlled substance under Penal Law Article 220 unless the physician has a specific interest in the subsequent sale of the drugs.

    Summary

    Dr. Lipton, a licensed physician, was convicted of multiple counts, including criminal sale of a controlled substance, for writing false prescriptions that were used to obtain drugs for illegal sale and use. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions for criminal sale, holding that merely writing illegal prescriptions, even with knowledge of their intended illicit use, does not constitute a criminal sale under Penal Law Article 220. The Court emphasized that the separate definitions of “prescribe” and “sell” in the Public Health Law indicate a distinct meaning, and that to be liable for criminal sale, the physician must have a specific intent or interest in the actual sale of the drugs to a third party. The Court upheld the remaining convictions.

    Facts

    Dr. Lipton, a practicing physician, conspired with Stephen Raia to write prescriptions for controlled substances like Demerol and Quaalude. Raia and others filled these prescriptions (often using names of non-patients or a deceased patient) and sold the drugs. Lipton received half of the proceeds. The scheme led to abuse, including a fatal overdose. Raia, granted immunity, assisted police in investigating Lipton. Raia obtained prescriptions from Lipton while wearing a wire, and later, at Lipton’s office, using names provided by police. On another occasion, Lipton wrote a prescription for Patrick Ryder, who sold it to John Gory, who filled it and distributed the drugs.

    Procedural History

    An Onondaga Grand Jury indicted Lipton on 480 counts. The trial court submitted 37 representative counts to the jury and denied Lipton’s motion to dismiss the counts charging criminal sale. The jury convicted Lipton on multiple counts, including criminal sale. The Appellate Division affirmed. Lipton appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, challenging his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a physician who unlawfully issues prescriptions, knowing they will be used for illicit drug trafficking, can be found guilty of criminal “sale” of a controlled substance under Article 220 of the Penal Law.

    Holding

    No, because merely writing a false prescription, even with the knowledge that it is to be used for illegal purposes, does not constitute the criminal “sale” of a controlled substance unless the physician also has a specific interest in the actual sale of those drugs to a third party.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court analyzed the Penal Law and Public Health Law, noting that while the Penal Law defines “sell” broadly, the Public Health Law separately defines “prescribe” and “sell,” indicating distinct meanings. Citing Matter of Tonis v. Board of Regents, the court reiterated that prescribing drugs, even outside regular practice, does not equate to “selling” them. The Court rejected the argument that a rule by the Commissioner of Health altered this result. The court found that the act of prescribing, even illegally, is distinct from the act of selling. The court clarified that a physician could be liable as an accomplice to a sale if they intentionally aided in the sale and acted with the required mental culpability, meaning they had a specific interest in the drugs being sold to a third party. The court found insufficient evidence that Lipton had such intent in the instances underlying the criminal sale convictions. Specifically, prescriptions issued on August 11 were confiscated before being filled, prescriptions issued on August 24 were similarly seized and a prescription issued for Ryder on August 30 lacked evidence that Lipton had knowledge of or interest in Gory’s subsequent distribution of drugs to his friends. Despite reversing the criminal sale convictions, the Court emphasized that physicians who engage in such activities are not immune from prosecution and may be convicted of other crimes like criminal solicitation, conspiracy, and criminal facilitation. The court noted that issues regarding the accomplice status of certain witnesses and the burden of proof were not properly preserved for appeal.