New York Law Review

Tag: preservation of error

  • People v. McDowell, 47 N.Y.2d 858 (1979): Preserving Objections for Appeal

    47 N.Y.2d 858 (1979)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review in New York, a party must make a specific objection at trial, clearly stating the grounds for the objection; otherwise, the issue is waived.

    Summary

    Defendants McDowell and Dunleavy appealed their convictions, arguing that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of McDowell was unduly prejudicial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding the convictions, holding that the defendants failed to properly preserve their objections for appellate review. The defense’s objections at trial were based on improper factual assumptions in the prosecutor’s questions, not on the prejudicial nature of the questioning itself. Because the specific grounds for the objections were not stated, the issue was not preserved. The court also found the defendants’ other preserved contentions to be without merit.

    Facts

    The specific facts of the underlying crime are not detailed in this memorandum decision. The relevant facts pertain to the conduct of the trial, specifically the cross-examination of defendant McDowell by the prosecutor and the defense’s objections during that cross-examination.

    Procedural History

    The defendants were convicted at trial. They appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the convictions. They then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendants preserved their objection to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant McDowell for appellate review, given that their objections at trial were based on improper factual assumptions rather than the prejudicial nature of the questioning.

    Holding

    No, because the defendants did not specifically state the grounds for their objection as being the prejudicial nature of the questioning during the trial, they failed to preserve that issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of specifically stating the grounds for an objection at trial. The Court stated that “defendants having failed to properly state to the trial court the grounds for their objections or object to this line of questioning, this issue is not preserved for our review.” The court observed that on numerous occasions, the prosecutor asked McDowell whether he had heard prosecution witnesses make certain statements, and yet no objection was taken on the grounds that the questions were prejudicial. By failing to clearly articulate the basis for their objections, the defendants deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address the specific issue of prejudice and potentially remedy any harm. This decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts will generally only review issues that were properly raised and preserved in the trial court. This rule prevents “sandbagging” where a lawyer sits silently on an error, hoping to get a favorable result, but then using the error on appeal if the result is unfavorable.

  • People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26 (1979): Appellate Review Limited to Questions of Law

    People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26 (1979)

    An appellate court’s reversal of a conviction must be based solely on questions of law, not on discretionary considerations, to be appealable to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether an Appellate Division’s reversal of a criminal conviction was based solely on questions of law, which is a prerequisite for the Court of Appeals to have jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals held that because the Appellate Division’s decision appeared to rely, at least in part, on unpreserved errors and prosecutorial misconduct—issues that would involve discretionary review—the reversal was not “on the law alone.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, clarifying the importance of a clear legal basis for appellate reversals to establish jurisdiction.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of a crime. On appeal, the Appellate Division initially reversed the conviction “on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.” The People moved to resettle the order, seeking to eliminate the discretionary basis for the decision. The Appellate Division amended the order to state that the reversal was solely on the law.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was originally convicted. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction. The People moved to resettle the Appellate Division’s order to eliminate the reference to discretionary reversal. The Appellate Division amended its order, stating the reversal was solely on the law. The People then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction was based solely on a question of law, thus giving the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Holding

    No, because the Appellate Division’s memorandum opinion cited instances of prosecutorial misconduct for which no objections were made at trial, indicating a review based, at least in part, on discretionary considerations rather than purely legal errors.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized its power to examine the substance of an appellate court’s order, not just its form, to determine if it meets the statutory requirements for review. Despite the amended order stating the reversal was “on the law alone,” the accompanying memorandum continued to reference instances of prosecutorial misconduct to which no objections were raised at trial. Such unpreserved errors do not present questions of law for appellate review. The court reasoned that “the failure to delete the references to these unpreserved errors makes it evident that the court’s decision must have been premised at least partially on the exercise of discretion and, hence, cannot be said to have been ‘on the law alone’.” The Court cited CPL 470.05, subd 2, noting that objections must be made to preserve issues for appellate review. Because the Appellate Division’s opinion relied on issues that were not properly preserved, it indicated that the decision was based, at least in part, on the court’s discretion. The Court of Appeals reiterated that intermediate appellate courts should not routinely grant motions to resettle orders solely to conform to the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Appeals when the underlying basis for the decision remains unchanged in both the order and the opinion. The appeal was dismissed because the determination to reverse did not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate that it be made “on the law alone.”

  • People v. Dackman, 42 N.Y.2d 1067 (1977): Preserving Objections Regarding Witness Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

    People v. Dackman, 42 N.Y.2d 1067 (1977)

    A defendant’s failure to object to a trial court’s recognition of a witness’s claim of privilege against self-incrimination forfeits the right to appellate review of that specific error.

    Summary

    Dackman was convicted based on a drugstore robbery in which a participant, who had already pleaded guilty, was subpoenaed by the defense. This witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The trial court did not allow the defendant to call the witness to the stand. The defendant did not object to the court’s decision regarding the witness’s privilege. On appeal, the defendant argued the witness should not have been allowed to invoke the privilege because he had already pleaded guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant’s failure to object at trial precluded appellate review of the claim that the witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege was improperly recognized.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged with a crime based on his participation in a drugstore robbery.
    A participant in the robbery pleaded guilty.
    The defendant subpoenaed this participant as a witness, hoping for exculpatory testimony.
    The witness, when examined outside the presence of the jury, invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify.
    The trial court ruled that the defendant could not call the witness to the stand, and defense counsel did not object.
    The trial court then denied the defense’s request to inform the jury about the witness’s guilty plea and his reason for not appearing, a decision the defendant did not appeal.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted the defendant.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
    The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant, by failing to object to the trial court’s recognition of a witness’s claim of privilege against self-incrimination, preserves the alleged error for appellate review.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to object to the trial court’s recognition of the claim of privilege or otherwise raise any question as to the witness’s right to assert such privilege, the error, if any, was not preserved for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the defendant did not object to the trial court’s recognition of the witness’s Fifth Amendment claim. Because of this failure to object, the Court held that the issue of whether the witness was improperly allowed to invoke the privilege was not preserved for appellate review.

    The Court acknowledged a potentially significant issue concerning the prosecution’s failure to grant immunity to the witness, which could have deprived the defendant of exculpatory testimony and potentially violated due process and the right to a fair trial (citing People v. Sapia, 41 NY2d 160). However, the Court clarified that this issue was neither preserved nor presented on appeal.

    The Court stated, “In view of the failure of defendant to object to the trial court’s recognition of the claim of privilege or otherwise then to raise any question as to the witness’ right to assert such privilege, the error, if any, was not preserved for appellate review.”

  • Kaplan v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 794 (1977): Admissibility of Prior Condition Evidence and Preservation of Error

    Kaplan v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 794 (1977)

    Evidence of a prior condition is inadmissible when the issue is the safety of a condition at the time of the accident, and failure to object to a jury charge waives appellate review of any errors therein.

    Summary

    In this personal injury case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of the radiator cover’s condition six months before the accident. The court reasoned that the relevant inquiry was the safety of the radiator cover at the time of the accident, not its prior condition or the quality of any repairs. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff waived their right to appellate review regarding errors in the jury charge by failing to object or take exception to the charge at trial. The Court found that no error deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial as a matter of law.

    Facts

    The plaintiff was injured while working on a radiator cover. At trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence regarding the condition of the radiator cover approximately six months before the accident. The trial court excluded this evidence.

    Procedural History

    The trial court ruled against the plaintiff after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether evidence of the condition of the radiator cover approximately six months prior to the accident was properly excluded.
    2. Whether the plaintiff’s failure to object or take exception to the court’s charge to the jury preserved any alleged errors in the charge for appellate review.

    Holding

    1. No, because the issue was the safety of the radiator cover as it existed on the day of the accident, not its prior condition.
    2. No, because failure to assert any objections or exceptions to the charge means any error was not preserved for review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the evidence of the radiator cover’s condition six months before the accident was not relevant to the central issue: whether the radiator cover, as it existed on the day of the accident, was a safe place to work. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not concern negligent repairs or whether the original condition was safer. The court focused on the state of the radiator cover at the time of the injury.

    Regarding the jury charge, the court applied the well-established rule that a party must object or take exception to a jury charge at trial to preserve any alleged errors for appellate review. The court found that the plaintiff’s silence at trial constituted a waiver of their right to challenge the charge on appeal. The Court also stated, “[N]or can it be said that the actions of the trial court deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial as a matter of law.” This suggests a very high bar for overturning a verdict based on unpreserved errors in a jury charge.

  • People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011 (1976): Preserving Error for Appeal in Miranda Rights Challenges

    People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011 (1976)

    A defendant must specifically challenge the sufficiency of Miranda warnings at the suppression hearing to preserve the issue for appeal; a general claim that no warnings were given is insufficient to raise a challenge to the explicitness of the right to counsel.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant failed to preserve for appeal his claim that the Miranda warnings given were deficient. The defendant argued that the warnings did not explicitly advise him of his right to have counsel present during on-the-scene questioning. Because the defendant’s challenge at the suppression hearing was a categorical denial of *any* warnings, the prosecution was not given an opportunity to address the specific deficiency now alleged on appeal. Thus, the Court refused to consider the argument because it was not properly preserved.

    Facts

    The defendant was interrogated by police and made statements and surrendered car keys, which he later sought to suppress.

    Procedural History

    The defendant moved to suppress statements and evidence. At the suppression hearing, the defendant claimed he received *none* of the constitutionally required Miranda warnings. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant, who argued at a suppression hearing that he received *no* Miranda warnings, can raise for the first time on appeal the argument that the Miranda warnings were deficient because they did not explicitly advise him of his right to have counsel present during on-the-scene questioning.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed at the suppression hearing to challenge the specific aspect of the Miranda warnings’ sufficiency, preventing the prosecution from presenting evidence to counter the assertion, he cannot raise that challenge for the first time on appeal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of preserving specific legal arguments at the trial level. The Court stated, “There can, of course, be no doubt that the right to counsel extends to representation during any interrogation by the police and that the defendant is entitled to advice to such effect.” However, the Court reasoned that fairness requires the defendant to raise specific objections during the suppression hearing so the prosecution can respond with evidence. Because the defendant only argued that he received *no* warnings, the prosecution had no opportunity to demonstrate that the warnings *did* adequately explain the right to have counsel present during questioning. To allow the defendant to raise this argument for the first time on appeal would be prejudicial to the prosecution. The court grounded its decision on procedural fairness, ensuring the People have a chance to address specific claims at the trial level.

  • People v. Lee, 35 N.Y.2d 826 (1974): Preserving Objections to Jury Instructions for Appellate Review

    People v. Lee, 35 N.Y.2d 826 (1974)

    To preserve an objection to a jury instruction for appellate review in New York, the party must make their position known to the court at a time when the court has an opportunity to correct the error.

    Summary

    Defendant Lee appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court’s jury instruction regarding intoxication as a defense was erroneous because it referred to the voluntary use of drugs when he claimed his drug use was involuntary. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant failed to preserve this specific objection at trial. The Court emphasized that the defendant only took a general exception to the charge on intoxication, without specifically objecting to the characterization of drug use as voluntary. Because the defendant did not give the trial court an opportunity to correct the alleged error, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

    Facts

    The defendant, Lee, was charged with a crime. At trial, Lee claimed his actions were caused by unknowingly ingesting LSD that had been added to his Coca-Cola. He requested a jury instruction that intoxication is a defense if it prevents the defendant from forming the required criminal intent. The trial judge’s charge included references to the voluntary use of drugs and its impact on the defendant’s capacity to form the necessary criminal intent.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that the jury instruction was erroneous. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, finding the error was not preserved for review.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the objection that the trial court incorrectly characterized his drug use as voluntary in its jury instruction on intoxication.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant did not make his position known to the trial court at a time when the court could have corrected the instruction.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to preserve the objection regarding the characterization of drug use as voluntary because he only made a general exception to the intoxication charge. The Court relied on CPL 470.05 (subd 2), which requires a party to make “his position with respect to the * * * instruction known to the court” at a “time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same.” Because the defendant did not specifically object to the voluntary nature of the drug use at trial, the trial court was not given the opportunity to correct the alleged error. The court also addressed the denial of a continuance, determining that the decision was within the trial judge’s discretion.

  • People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224 (1975): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224 (1975)

    To preserve a question of law for review by the New York Court of Appeals regarding a ruling or instruction of a criminal court, a protest must be registered at the time of such ruling or instruction, or at a subsequent time when the court has an opportunity to correct the error.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of murder, attempted robbery, and attempted grand larceny. On appeal, he argued that the trial court’s jury charge contained errors, including misstatements of fact and confusing legal instructions. However, defense counsel did not object to the charge or request clarifications during the trial. The New York Court of Appeals held that because no timely objection was made, the alleged errors were not preserved for appellate review in that court. While the Appellate Division has discretion to review unpreserved errors, the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction is limited to questions of law that have been properly preserved.

    Facts

    The defendant was present during an attempted robbery where one of the victims was shot and killed by one of the defendant’s companions. At trial, the defendant admitted his presence but denied knowing his companions planned to commit a crime or that they were armed, and denied any participation. Another victim testified that the defendant cut off his escape route during the robbery attempt. Another witness testified that the defendant and his companion left his apartment earlier that evening, stating they needed money urgently, and that the defendant knew his companion had a gun. The defendant told a detective “they were looking for a prostitute and a pimp to take them off.”

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in the trial court. He appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing errors in the jury charge. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an unobjected-to error in the trial court’s jury charge is reviewable by the New York Court of Appeals when the defendant claims he was deprived of a fair trial.

    Holding

    No, because the failure to object to the charge or request further clarifications at a time when the error could have been corrected, means that the defendant preserved no question of law reviewable in the Court of Appeals.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that its jurisdiction in criminal cases is limited to questions of law, and that CPL 470.05(2) requires a protest to a ruling or instruction at a time when the court could effectively change it. The court noted that counsel for both sides have a responsibility to protect the rights of the parties by calling the court’s attention to correctable errors of law. Here, the defendant’s failure to object to the jury charge at trial meant that the alleged errors were not preserved for review in the Court of Appeals. The Court distinguished the Appellate Division’s broader power under CPL 470.15(1) to consider any question of law or fact, even absent a protest. The Court stated: “[W]e note in this regard that counsel for both sides are not without responsibility in protecting the substantial rights of the parties and that that responsibility extends to calling the attention of the court to errors of law which adversely affect a client at a time when such errors are correctible.” Because the Appellate Division had already affirmed the judgment, the Court of Appeals was constrained to affirm as well, because the alleged errors were not reviewable in the absence of a proper exception or request.

  • People v. De Berry, 40 N.Y.2d 604 (1976): Admissibility of Confessions and Preservation of Error

    People v. De Berry, 40 N.Y.2d 604 (1976)

    A guilty verdict will be upheld when supported by overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and voluntary admissions by the defendant; furthermore, errors must be properly preserved at trial to be considered on appeal.

    Summary

    Following a retrial, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for homicide. The court found overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony, the defendant’s fingerprints at the scene, and oral and written admissions made by the defendant. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that he was entitled to a hearing de novo on the voluntariness of his confession and that the prosecution violated the rule in Bruton v. United States, finding that the rule was not violated and that any alleged error was not preserved for review. The court concluded that the defendant’s remaining claims also lacked merit.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of homicide. The prosecution presented evidence including: eyewitness testimony placing the defendant at the scene, forensic evidence of the defendant’s fingerprints at the crime scene, oral admissions made by the defendant, and written admissions made by the defendant. The defendant presented an alibi defense, claiming he was blocks away from the scene at the time of the homicide.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted and appealed. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant was entitled to a hearing de novo on the voluntariness of his confession.
    2. Whether a portion of the testimony presented by the prosecution violated the rule in Bruton v. United States.

    Holding

    1. No, because the record shows overwhelming evidence to support the guilty verdict.
    2. No, because the rule was not violated and, in any event, any such alleged error was not preserved for review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals based its decision on the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. This evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, irrespective of the defendant’s alibi defense. The court emphasized that the evidence included eyewitness accounts, the defendant’s fingerprints at the scene, and the defendant’s own admissions. Regarding the Bruton claim (regarding the admissibility of a co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant), the court found no violation. Critically, the court also noted the defendant had not properly preserved any such error for review, meaning the defense failed to object appropriately during the trial to preserve the issue for appellate review. The Court implicitly applied the contemporaneous objection rule, which requires parties to raise objections at the time of the alleged error to give the trial court an opportunity to correct it. The Court wrote, “As to this latter claim, the rule was not violated and, in any event, any such alleged error was not preserved for review. These contentions lack merit, as do appellant’s remaining claims.” This underscores the importance of making timely and specific objections to evidence and procedures during a trial to preserve those issues for appeal. Failure to do so typically results in a waiver of the right to raise the issue on appeal, even if the error is significant. This case highlights that even potentially valid legal arguments can be lost if they are not properly raised and preserved at the trial level. The decision emphasizes the importance of competent trial advocacy and adherence to procedural rules in criminal cases.

  • People v. Brown, 34 N.Y.2d 658 (1974): Inference from Failure to Call Witness

    People v. Brown, 34 N.Y.2d 658 (1974)

    When a witness is readily available to the prosecution, acted jointly with a testifying witness, and would presumably be an eyewitness, it is better practice to call that witness; if not, the defendant has the right to comment on the failure to produce the witness and request a charge as to the inference the jury might draw.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that while it is better practice for the prosecution to call all available eyewitnesses, the defendant’s rights were not violated in this case because the defense withdrew its request to comment on the prosecution’s failure to call a particular witness. The Court emphasized the importance of calling witnesses who acted jointly with testifying witnesses and were presumably eyewitnesses. However, because the defense modified and withdrew its request, the issue wasn’t preserved for appeal.

    Facts

    Patrolman Piller testified against the defendant, forming the basis of the prosecution’s case. Another police officer, Officer Rothstein, acted jointly with Patrolman Piller during the events in question and was presumably an eyewitness. The prosecution did not call Officer Rothstein to testify.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant was deprived of his right to comment on the prosecution’s failure to produce Officer Rothstein, or of his right to a charge as to the inference which might be drawn by the jury from such failure, when the prosecution offered the witness for the defense to interview and call if desired.

    Holding

    No, because the defense withdrew its request to comment on the prosecution’s failure to call Officer Rothstein, and did not request a charge as to any inference arising from that failure. Thus, the questions of whether the defendant was deprived of his rights were not preserved for review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court stated that when another officer acted jointly with a testifying officer and was presumably an eyewitness, “better practice would have been to have put him on the stand as well.” The Court acknowledged that the testimony of the second officer would not necessarily be cumulative or trivial. The court emphasized that a defendant cannot be deprived of his right to comment on the failure of the prosecution to produce a witness or of his right to a jury charge regarding inferences if the prosecution simply offers the witness to the defense for interview and potential testimony. The Court reasoned that such a witness would likely be favorable to the prosecution and hostile to the defense. However, the Court found that the defense withdrew and substantially modified its request to comment on the prosecution’s failure to call Officer Rothstein. Because of this withdrawal, and because the defense did not request a jury charge on the matter, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.