New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Redmond

  • People v. Redmond, 19 N.Y.2d 748 (1967): Appellate Court’s Discretion to Reverse in the Interest of Justice Despite Lack of Objection

    People v. Redmond, 19 N.Y.2d 748 (1967)

    An appellate court can reverse a conviction and order a new trial in the interest of justice, even if the defendant’s counsel did not object to an error at trial, but this discretionary reversal is not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

    Summary

    The Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s appeal because the Appellate Division’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction was based on its discretionary power to act in the interest of justice. The defendant’s counsel failed to object to the trial court’s charge on self-defense. Even though the Appellate Division’s order suggested a reversal on the law, the Court of Appeals determined that the citation to Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated the reversal stemmed from the Appellate Division’s discretionary authority, which precludes review by the Court of Appeals.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted after a trial where the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense. The defendant’s counsel did not object to the court’s charge. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the Appellate Division’s discretionary decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review an Appellate Division order that reverses a conviction and orders a new trial, when the reversal is based on the Appellate Division’s discretionary power to act in the interest of justice, despite the absence of an objection at trial.

    Holding

    No, because the Appellate Division’s decision to reverse in the interest of justice under Code of Criminal Procedure § 527 is a discretionary act not reviewable by the Court of Appeals, regardless of whether the Appellate Division also stated it was reversing on the law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that while the Appellate Division’s order recited that the reversal was on the law, it had to be read in conjunction with the Appellate Division’s opinion. Because the defense counsel did not object to the trial court’s charge, no question of law was properly preserved for appellate review. However, the Appellate Division possessed the authority under Code of Criminal Procedure § 527 to reverse and order a new trial in the interest of justice, even without a formal objection. The Court determined that the Appellate Division’s reference to Section 527 indicated that the reversal was an exercise of this discretionary power. Citing prior case law, the Court stated that it lacks jurisdiction to review orders that are not reversals on the law alone. As such, the appeal was dismissed.