New York Law Review

Tag: preservation of error

  • People v. Perez, 88 N.Y.2d 903 (1996): Preservation of Claims Challenging Guilty Pleas

    People v. Perez, 88 N.Y.2d 903 (1996)

    A challenge to the validity of a guilty plea must be preserved before the trial court and does not constitute a “mode of proceedings” error excusing the need for preservation unless it falls within a narrow, rare exception.

    Summary

    Defendant Perez appealed his conviction, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid due to an ambiguous comment made by the trial court. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s challenge to the guilty plea’s validity was not preserved for appellate review. The Court determined that the trial court’s comment was at most a “mere mistake” and did not constitute a fundamental error affecting the “mode of proceedings,” thus requiring preservation. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving such challenges and found that the circumstances of this case did not warrant an exception to the preservation rule.

    Facts

    Defendant Perez pleaded guilty. At the end of the plea proceeding, the trial court made a comment that Perez later argued rendered his plea invalid. The defendant allocuted to the elements of the crime and repeatedly indicated his desire to plead guilty as part of a package deal involving a co-defendant.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted on a guilty plea. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A judge of the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s claim, challenging the validity of his guilty plea based on an ambiguous comment by the trial court, had to be preserved before the trial court to be reviewable on appeal.

    Holding

    No, because the challenge to the validity of the plea in this case had to be preserved and is not a “mode of proceedings” matter. The utterance upon which defendant’s claims hinge, was at most a “mere mistake” of language by the court and does not qualify for the narrow, rare exception to the requirement that the claim of an invalid guilty plea must be appropriately preserved.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s comment, at most, amounted to a “mere mistake” and did not rise to the level of a fundamental error affecting the mode of proceedings. The Court emphasized that the record demonstrated a clear understanding among all participants that the defendant was entering a voluntary guilty plea, which was further confirmed by their positions at sentencing. The court distinguished this case from those rare instances where preservation is not required for challenges to guilty pleas, such as in People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662 (1988). The Court noted that the unassailable understanding at the plea proceeding by all participants as to what was functionally taking place, confirmed by their positions at sentencing, contradicts defendant’s substantive reformulation, first advanced as an argument before the Appellate Division. The court stated that the case does not qualify for the narrow, rare exception to the requirement that the claim of an invalid guilty plea must be appropriately preserved. The court referenced People v Minaya, 54 NY2d 360, 365 in stating that the utterance was a mere mistake of language by the court.

  • People v. Fabricio, 3 N.Y.3d 402 (2004): Defendant’s Right to Be Present at Trial

    3 N.Y.3d 402 (2004)

    A defendant’s right to be present at trial extends only to material stages where their presence would have a substantial effect on their ability to defend against the charges.

    Summary

    Fabricio was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and robbery. After the trial court interviewed the surviving victim and jurors in chambers with all counsel present, regarding potential bias, Fabricio appealed, claiming he had a right to be present during these interviews. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Fabricio’s presence during the interviews would not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges and, therefore, his presence was not required. The court emphasized the importance of preserving such claims and determined that the interviews did not constitute material stages of the trial.

    Facts

    The defendant, Fabricio, was convicted on multiple counts including murder, attempted murder, and robbery after a jury trial. Following some developments during the trial, the trial court interviewed the surviving victim in chambers, with all counsel present, regarding his identification testimony related to the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. After denying the mistrial, the court, at defense counsel’s request, conducted inquiries of each juror to ensure they were not disqualified by the preceding developments. The defendant was not present at either of these interviews.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Fabricio of murder, attempted murder, and robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A Judge of the Court of Appeals granted Fabricio leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant was entitled to be present when the trial court interviewed the surviving victim in chambers regarding identification testimony, in connection with the defendant’s motion for a mistrial.

    Whether the defendant had a right to be present when the court conducted inquiries of each individual juror to ensure they were not disqualified after denying the mistrial and agreeing to defense counsel’s request for cautionary instructions.

    Holding

    No, because the judicial precautions taken in this case did not constitute material stages of the trial, and the defendant’s presence would not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the defendant failed to preserve the issues he raised on appeal regarding his absence during the interviews. The court reasoned that the interviews conducted by the trial court, both with the surviving victim and the jurors, did not constitute material stages of the trial. The court relied on precedent, citing People v. Spotford, People v. Torres, and People v. Ferguson, to support the principle that a defendant’s presence is only required at proceedings where their presence would have a substantial effect on their ability to defend against the charges. The court implicitly found that the defendant’s presence at these interviews would not have significantly contributed to his defense. Therefore, his absence did not violate his rights. The Court did not find that the defendant’s presence was necessary or would have altered the course of the proceedings, given that his counsel was present at both interviews and able to represent his interests.

  • People v. Duncan, 89 N.Y.2d 903 (1996): Preserving Jury Instruction Error for Appeal

    People v. Duncan, 89 N.Y.2d 903 (1996)

    To preserve for appellate review a claim that the trial court erred in failing to give an interested witness instruction, the defendant must specify on the record the particular witness for whom the instruction was requested.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of robbery and attempted robbery. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing his request for an interested witness instruction. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the issue was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to specify which witness the instruction should apply to. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while a defendant generally need not submit specific proposed language for a jury instruction, under these circumstances, the failure to specify the witness waived the issue.

    Facts

    Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree after a jury trial.

    Procedural History

    The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to give an interested witness instruction. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding the issue was unpreserved. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant must specify the particular witness for whom an interested witness instruction is requested to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Holding

    Yes, because under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s failure to specify to the trial court on the record the particular witness for which the instruction was requested, although given an opportunity to do so, renders the defendant’s claim of error unreviewable.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court acknowledged the general rule that a defendant need not submit specific proposed language for a jury instruction to preserve an objection. However, the Court distinguished this case, emphasizing that the defendant was given an opportunity to specify the witness in question but failed to do so. The court reasoned that without this specification, the trial court could not properly evaluate the request and, therefore, the error was not preserved for appellate review. The court cited CPL 470.05[2] in support of the preservation requirement. The court differentiated the facts from cases such as People v. Karabinas, 63 NY2d 871, where preservation was found despite a lack of perfect specificity.

  • People v. Alcide, 89 N.Y.2d 961 (1997): Preserving Objections to Jury Polling

    People v. Alcide, 89 N.Y.2d 961 (1997)

    A defendant must make a specific objection or request for further inquiry during jury polling to preserve a claim that the court failed to adequately inquire into a juror’s verdict.

    Summary

    Alcide was convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree assault. During jury polling, one juror initially remained silent when asked if the verdict was hers, but eventually responded affirmatively after the court’s prompting. The defense attorney did not object to the procedure or request further inquiry. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into the juror’s verdict was unpreserved for appellate review because the defense failed to object or request specific procedures during the polling process. The court also found no abuse of discretion in repeating the “acting-in-concert” instruction.

    Facts

    Alcide was tried for murder and assault stemming from an incident in Bronx County. During deliberations, the jury requested further explanation of attempted second-degree murder and second-degree assault. The court, in response, repeated its previous instruction on “acting-in-concert” liability. The jury then informed the court it had reached a verdict, finding Alcide guilty of second-degree murder and second-degree assault.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted Alcide of second-degree murder and second-degree assault. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with two justices dissenting. A dissenting justice granted Alcide leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to adequately inquire into a juror’s vote during polling is preserved for appellate review when the defendant failed to object or request further inquiry during the polling process.
    2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by including an instruction on the “acting-in-concert” theory of liability in its response to the jury’s note.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to make a specific objection or request further inquiry when the juror was being polled, and again failed to object after the entire jury was polled.
    2. No, because there is no distinction between liability as a principal and criminal culpability as an accessory, and the prosecution pursued both lines of reasoning.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that under CPL 310.80, a juror’s negative response during polling requires the court to refuse the verdict and direct further deliberations. While a juror’s response may raise doubts requiring resolution, a request for specific procedures to correct irregularities must be preserved for review. Here, Alcide’s counsel failed to object or request further inquiry when the juror hesitated. The court stated, “Defendant’s contention on appeal concerning a claimed failure of the trial court to make certain inquiries is unpreserved for our review.”

    Regarding the “acting-in-concert” instruction, the court stated, “Because there is ‘no distinction between liability as a principal and criminal culpability as an accessory’ and the prosecution pursued both lines of reasoning in presenting its case, the court’s repetition of its previous instructions to which defendant had not objected was consistent with ‘the substantive scope of the initial written inquiries’.” The court found no abuse of discretion.

  • People v. Bond, 90 N.Y.2d 877 (1997): Justification Defense Requires Reasonable Belief of Imminent Threat to Defendant

    90 N.Y.2d 877 (1997)

    A defendant’s claim of justification (self-defense) requires a reasonable belief that the purported victim was about to use deadly physical force against the defendant; an objection to the jury instruction must be specific to preserve the issue for appeal.

    Summary

    Richard Bond was convicted of second-degree murder and related charges after firing a rifle at a group of people, resulting in the death of an innocent bystander. Bond claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed individuals in the group were about to draw weapons. The trial court instructed the jury on the justification defense. Bond appealed, arguing that the instruction was erroneous because it implied the justification defense only applied if Bond reasonably believed the bystander was about to use deadly force against him. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Bond’s general objection to the jury instruction was insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal and that his sentencing claim lacked merit. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for specific objections to jury instructions to preserve appellate review.

    Facts

    Richard Bond fired a rifle at a group of people standing in front of a grocery store.

    A stray bullet fatally injured Lloyd Pearsol, an innocent bystander inside the store.

    Bond claimed he fired the rifle because he believed individuals in the group outside the store were gesturing as if to draw their weapons.

    The trial court charged the jury on the defense of justification at the request of both sides.

    Procedural History

    Bond was charged with second-degree murder, first-degree reckless endangerment, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

    Following a jury trial, Bond was convicted.

    Bond appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction.

    Bond appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Bond’s general objection to the trial court’s justification instruction was sufficient to preserve his appellate claim that the instruction was erroneous.

    Holding

    No, because defense counsel’s brief objection at trial to the court’s justification instruction was not sufficient to preserve defendant’s present appellate claim.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that Bond’s objection at trial was too general to preserve the specific argument he raised on appeal regarding the justification defense. The court emphasized that a specific objection is necessary to bring the alleged error to the trial court’s attention and allow for correction. Because Bond failed to specifically object to the instruction on the ground that it improperly focused on the bystander’s (Pearsol’s) actions rather than the actions of those Bond claimed to be acting in self-defense against, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. The court also summarily dismissed Bond’s challenge to his consecutive sentences as meritless.

  • People v. De George, 87 N.Y.2d 824 (1995): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. De George, 87 N.Y.2d 824 (1995)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review in New York, a defendant must raise the specific legal theory at trial; a general objection is insufficient.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of robbery. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that, after waiving his Miranda rights and providing two alibis, the defendant remained silent when confronted with information contradicting those alibis. The defendant only objected to the evidence refuting the second alibi on hearsay grounds. On appeal, the defendant argued that the admission of testimony regarding his silence violated his constitutional right to remain silent and state evidentiary principles. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these specific arguments for appellate review because he did not raise them before the trial court.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged with robbery and, after being advised of his Miranda rights, provided two different alibis to the investigating officer. When confronted with information contradicting each alibi, the defendant remained silent. At trial, the prosecution introduced testimony regarding the defendant’s silence after the first alibi was contradicted without objection. When the prosecution sought to introduce testimony refuting the second alibi, the defendant objected on hearsay grounds, arguing that the individual who provided information to the police officer should be the one to testify. The trial court provided a curative instruction, stating the testimony was admitted to show the defendant’s state of mind, not for its truth. The prosecutor then elicited testimony, without objection, that the defendant did not respond when confronted with information contradicting his second alibi.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of robbery at trial. He appealed, arguing that the admission of testimony regarding his silence violated his constitutional right to remain silent and state evidentiary principles. The lower courts rejected the defendant’s claims. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the argument that the admission of testimony regarding his silence violated his constitutional right to remain silent and state evidentiary principles, when his only objection at trial was on hearsay grounds.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to raise the specific legal theories regarding his right to silence and state evidentiary principles before the trial court.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s claims regarding the violation of his right to silence and state evidentiary principles were not preserved for appellate review because he did not raise these specific arguments before the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of CPL 470.05 [2], which requires a party to specifically raise an issue at trial in order to preserve it for appeal. The court cited People v. Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 720, 722. The Court reasoned that a general objection, such as the hearsay objection raised in this case, is insufficient to preserve a different legal theory for appeal. By failing to specifically argue that the testimony violated his constitutional right to silence or state evidentiary principles, the defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address those specific issues and potentially avoid the alleged error. The court emphasized the need for specific objections to allow the trial court to make informed decisions and correct any potential errors in a timely manner. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of raising specific legal arguments at trial to preserve them for appellate review, ensuring that the trial court has the opportunity to address and rule on those issues in the first instance.

  • People v. Bongiorno, 85 N.Y.2d 923 (1995): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    85 N.Y.2d 923 (1995)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection during trial.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired after a motorcycle accident that resulted in his wife’s death. He was acquitted of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the criminally negligent homicide conviction and that the relation-back testimony regarding his blood alcohol level was inadmissible. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve these issues for review because he did not make timely and specific objections at trial. The Court also found no merit to the defendant’s other claims.

    Facts

    The defendant was involved in a motorcycle accident resulting in his wife’s death. The defendant was subsequently indicted for vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Following the accident, the defendant’s blood alcohol level was tested.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was tried before a jury. The jury acquitted him of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence but convicted him of criminally negligent homicide and driving while ability impaired. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the criminally negligent homicide conviction were preserved for appellate review.

    2. Whether the defendant’s claim regarding the admissibility of relation-back testimony concerning his blood alcohol level was preserved for appellate review.

    3. Whether the defendant was denied a fair trial due to certain evidentiary rulings.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

    2. No, because the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial regarding the admissibility of the relation-back testimony.

    3. No, the Court found no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that because the defendant failed to make a timely specific objection at trial to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for criminally negligent homicide and to the admissibility of relation-back testimony regarding the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident, these points were not preserved for the Court’s review. The court cited People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, and People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, to support this holding. The court emphasized the importance of raising objections at trial to give the lower court an opportunity to address the issues. Regarding the other evidentiary rulings, the Court found no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial. The Court noted that testimony regarding the defendant’s attempts to avoid giving an adequate breath sample was properly admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt, especially considering the trial court’s limiting instructions. Furthermore, any error in reporting the defendant’s blood alcohol level beyond the second decimal point was deemed harmless because the defendant was convicted of driving while ability impaired, which does not require a specific blood alcohol level. The court cited Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(c). Finally, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that he was not given an individualized sentence. The court in People v. Gray stated, “The main purposes of the preservation requirement, informing the court of the objection as well as affording the opportunity to cure the error, and of the contemporaneous objection rule, are advanced by requiring that the basis of the objection be apparent, either from its face, or from the context.”

  • People v. Rivera, 82 N.Y.2d 835 (1993): Preserving Arguments for Appellate Review

    People v. Rivera, 82 N.Y.2d 835 (1993)

    To preserve an argument for appellate review in New York, a party must raise a specific objection at trial that distinctly articulates the basis for the challenge.

    Summary

    Rivera was convicted of drug sales. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by giving a limiting instruction on uncharged crimes without his consent, violating his right to control his defense. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Rivera failed to properly preserve this specific argument for appellate review. Although he objected to the instruction, his objection reiterated his earlier concern that the instruction would highlight the officer’s testimony, not that the court usurped his right to chart his defense. The Court also found harmless any error in admitting testimony about ‘hand movements’ since it was consistent with both the prosecution and defense theories.

    Facts

    Rivera was charged and convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

    Prior to trial, the court ruled that the People could not introduce evidence of other “transactions” beyond the charged sales.

    At trial, a police officer testified to observing “hand movement” between Rivera and four individuals after the charged sales.

    Rivera moved for a mistrial, which was denied, but the court offered a limiting instruction on uncharged crimes, which Rivera initially declined.

    During summation, defense counsel suggested the officer might have seen people giving Rivera change or cookies. The prosecutor countered by saying the jury could also speculate Rivera was selling drugs to those people.

    The trial court then gave a limiting instruction to the jury stating that they should only consider the two alleged sales and not the possibility of other illegal conduct before or after those sales.

    Procedural History

    Rivera was convicted in the trial court.

    He appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction.

    He then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Rivera preserved for appellate review his argument that the trial court abridged his right to chart his own defense by giving a limiting instruction on uncharged crimes without his authorization.

    2. Whether Rivera was unduly prejudiced by the officer’s testimony relating to “hand movement.”

    Holding

    1. No, because Rivera’s objection at trial did not distinctly articulate the specific argument he raised on appeal—that the court usurped his right to chart his defense.

    2. No, because even if the officer’s testimony contravened the court’s pre-trial ruling, its admission was harmless, as it was consistent with both the prosecution’s and the defense’s theories.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that Rivera failed to preserve his argument regarding his right to chart his own defense because his objection at trial was different from the argument he raised on appeal. The Court emphasized the requirement under CPL 470.05[2] that a party distinctly raise and preserve objections at trial to allow the trial court an opportunity to correct the error.

    The Court noted that Rivera’s objection at trial focused on the concern that the limiting instruction would highlight the officer’s testimony about the four individuals, not on the argument that the instruction usurped his right to control his defense strategy. The court cited People v. Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819, emphasizing the need for specific objections.

    Regarding the officer’s testimony about “hand movement,” the Court found that even if the testimony violated the court’s pretrial ruling, its admission was harmless error. The Court reasoned that the testimony was consistent with the defense’s position that Rivera was engaged in innocent activity (panhandling), supported by evidence that he had a box of cookies and a cup of change. The court thus applied a harmless error analysis because the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial.

    The Court effectively highlighted the importance of precise objections at trial: vague or general objections are insufficient to preserve specific arguments for appeal. Defense counsel must clearly articulate the legal basis for an objection to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue.

  • People v. Wosu, 84 N.Y.2d 936 (1994): Preservation of Error Required for Appellate Review

    People v. Wosu, 84 N.Y.2d 936 (1994)

    To preserve a claim for appellate review, a party must specifically and adequately raise the issue before the trial court.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of rape and sexual abuse of twin seven-year-old girls. The indictment alleged the crimes occurred between November 1 and November 30, 1991, later narrowed to “around Thanksgiving.” During deliberations, the jury asked for the “actual date” of the crimes. The trial judge instructed them that the date was a question of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant’s appellate claims were not properly preserved at trial because his counsel did not specifically object to the supplemental jury instruction.

    Facts

    The defendant was accused of raping and sexually abusing twin seven-year-old girls. The alleged incidents occurred between November 1 and November 30, 1991. The prosecution narrowed the timeframe to “around Thanksgiving” in a bill of particulars. The child victims’ memories were linked to a Thanksgiving dinner at their father’s house.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial judge’s supplemental instruction should have informed the jury that the incident occurred on or near Thanksgiving Day, consistent with the evidence presented at trial.

    Whether it was error to instruct the jury that the date of the incident was a question of fact for their determination.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant’s trial counsel did not specifically and adequately preserve the issue for appellate review.

    No, because the defendant’s trial counsel did not specifically and adequately preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division majority that the defendant’s trial counsel failed to specifically and adequately preserve the appellate claims. The court emphasized that defense counsel did not properly object to the trial judge’s supplemental instruction. Because the issues were not properly preserved, the Court of Appeals lacked the power to review them. The court noted that “[b]ecause the issues are beyond this Court’s power to review in these circumstances and defendant’s remaining claims are without merit, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division.” The court effectively reinforced the fundamental principle of appellate law that objections must be raised at the trial level to be considered on appeal. This encourages parties to address issues promptly and allows the trial court to correct any errors, preventing unnecessary appeals. It underscores the importance of making specific and timely objections to preserve legal arguments for appellate review. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to raise those arguments on appeal.

  • People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 764 (1995): Requirement to Preserve Error When Defendant is Physically Present

    People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 764 (1995)

    When a defendant is physically present with counsel at a Sandoval hearing, traditional trial court preservation rules apply, requiring the defendant to raise any objections, such as the need for an interpreter, to the trial court to preserve the issue for appeal.

    Summary

    Defendant Robles was convicted of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. He argued on appeal that his conviction should be overturned because he was constructively absent from his Sandoval hearing due to the lack of an interpreter, even though he was physically present with his lawyer and no interpreter was requested. The Court of Appeals held that because Robles was physically present with counsel and failed to request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to traditional preservation rules when the defendant is physically present and represented by counsel.

    Facts

    Robles was charged with criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. He attended the Sandoval hearing with his lawyer, but no interpreter was present. Defense counsel did not request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one. Robles was subsequently convicted after a jury trial.

    Procedural History

    At the Appellate Division, Robles argued for the first time that the lack of an interpreter at his Sandoval hearing rendered him constructively absent, entitling him to a new trial. The Appellate Division initially affirmed his conviction, holding that the argument was unpreserved. However, upon reargument, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that Robles did not have to preserve the claim. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant who is physically present with counsel at a Sandoval hearing, but who fails to request an interpreter or object to the hearing proceeding without one, must preserve the issue for appeal.

    Holding

    Yes, because the plain language of CPL 260.20 and its purpose support the conclusion that traditional trial court preservation rules apply when a defendant is physically present with their lawyer.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that the key issue was whether trial court preservation was required for the interpreter claim at the Sandoval hearing. CPL 260.20 grants a defendant the right to be “personally present during the trial of an indictment.” While the Court had previously held that this right extends to the Sandoval stage and that defendants need not preserve violations of this right when actually absent (citing People v. Dokes, 79 NY2d 656), Robles conceded that he and his lawyer were physically present at the hearing. The Court distinguished this case from situations where the defendant was actually absent or otherwise unable to understand the proceedings. The Court reasoned that maintaining customary preservation rules in cases where the defendant is physically present and represented by counsel is a more practical way to satisfy the underlying purposes of the statute and its related policies. As the Court noted, “We conclude that maintaining customary preservation rules in a case such as this is prudent and a more definite, practical way to fairly satisfy the underlying purposes of the statute and attendant policies (compare, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19).” The Court found that requiring preservation in these circumstances promotes fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.