People v. Maharaj, 89 N.Y.2d 987 (1997)

A trial court’s failure to consider a defendant’s request to consider a lesser included offense during a bench trial constitutes reversible error, and this error cannot be rectified after the verdict.

Summary

Maharaj was convicted of common-law driving while intoxicated (DWI). During the bench trial, his counsel requested the court to consider driving while impaired (DWAI) as a lesser included offense. The trial court erroneously believed DWAI was a lesser included offense of the per se statutory DWI charge, not the common-law DWI. Though the court later dismissed the DWAI conviction at sentencing, the Court of Appeals held that the initial failure to consider DWAI under the common-law DWI count was reversible error, as the court lacked the authority to reweigh the evidence after the verdict. A new trial on the common-law DWI count was ordered.

Facts

• Maharaj was charged with per se statutory DWI (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2)) and common-law DWI (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3)).
• Maharaj waived his right to a jury trial.
• During the bench trial, his attorney requested the court to consider DWAI (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1)) as a lesser included offense of the common-law DWI charge.
• The People mistakenly argued that DWAI was a lesser included offense of the per se statutory DWI.
• The trial court adopted the People’s mistaken belief.

Procedural History

• The trial court found Maharaj not guilty of per se statutory DWI but guilty of DWAI.
• He was also found guilty of common-law DWI.
• Maharaj moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the trial court erred in considering DWAI as a lesser included offense of the per se statutory DWI.
• The trial court initially dismissed the DWAI conviction but upheld the common-law DWI conviction.
• The Appellate Division affirmed.
• The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering a new trial on the common-law DWI count.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a trial court’s failure to consider a defendant’s request to consider a lesser included offense during a bench trial constitutes reversible error.
2. Whether a trial court can rectify its error of failing to consider the lesser included offense by dismissing the conviction of the lesser offense at sentencing.

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendant was entitled to the court’s consideration of the lesser included offense, and the failure to do so constitutes reversible error.
2. No, because after the formal rendition of a verdict at a bench trial, a trial court lacks authority to reweigh the factual evidence and reconsider the verdict.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that Maharaj was entitled to have the trial court consider DWAI as a lesser included offense of the common-law DWI, as his counsel requested. The court’s failure to do so was reversible error, analogous to a situation where a court erroneously refuses to submit a lesser included offense to a jury. The court emphasized that the fact that the judge was both fact-finder and judge of the law did not alter the outcome.

The Court further reasoned that the trial court’s attempt to rectify the error at sentencing was ineffective and exceeded its authority. Once a verdict is rendered in a bench trial, the trial court cannot reweigh the evidence and reconsider the verdict. CPL 320.20(4) and precedent such as People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530 (1984), support this conclusion.

The Court quoted People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63-64 stating the initial error required reversal.