New York Law Review

Tag: preservation of error

  • People v. Baker, 64 N.Y.2d 1024 (1985): Preserving Constitutional Claims for Appellate Review

    People v. Baker, 64 N.Y.2d 1024 (1985)

    A constitutional challenge to a statute must be properly raised in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Term’s order, holding that the evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for aggravated disorderly conduct. The Court declined to address the defendant’s constitutional challenge to the statute because the defendant failed to raise the issue in a timely manner before the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving legal arguments at the trial level to allow for proper judicial consideration and avoid surprising the opposing party and the court on appeal.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of aggravated disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.21. The specific facts constituting the disorderly conduct are not detailed in this memorandum opinion.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s claim that Penal Law § 240.21 violates the due process and establishment clauses of the United States Constitution was properly preserved for appellate review.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant failed to raise the constitutional challenge in a timely manner before the trial court.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s constitutional challenge was not preserved for review because she did not move for dismissal of the accusatory instrument based on the statute’s unconstitutionality within the time prescribed by CPL 170.30(1)(a), CPL 170.35(1)(c), CPL 170.30(2), and CPL 255.20(1). The defendant never made her constitutional argument known to the trial court before, during, or after the trial.

    The Court cited People v. Thomas, emphasizing that the rule requiring a defendant to preserve points for appellate review applies generally to claims of error involving federal constitutional rights. The Court also cited People v. Dozier, where a constitutional challenge to the statute defining third-degree rape was foreclosed because it was not properly raised. The court stated: “the rule requiring a defendant to preserve his points for appellate review applies generally to claims of error involving Federal constitutional rights”.

    By failing to raise the issue at the trial level, the defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to rule on the constitutional question and potentially avoid the need for an appeal. This procedural requirement ensures fairness and allows for the orderly administration of justice.

  • People v. Gray, 61 N.Y.2d 642 (1984): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Gray, 61 N.Y.2d 642 (1984)

    A general objection to a prosecutor’s summation, without specifying the objectionable statements, is insufficient to preserve those statements for appellate review.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide for the death of his infant daughter. On appeal, he argued that the prosecutor made several prejudicial remarks during summation. However, at trial, the defendant only made a general objection during the summation and a post-summation motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s conduct, referring to “speculative facts not in evidence.” The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s general objection was insufficient to preserve the alleged prejudicial statements for appellate review because it did not specifically alert the trial court to the comments now at issue.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide for causing the death of his seven-week-old daughter. During the prosecutor’s summation, the prosecutor allegedly made the following prejudicial remarks: commenting on the defendant’s silence prior to his arrest, improperly bolstering the credibility of his expert by introducing evidence that the defendant’s attorney had also retained the expert in other cases, vouching for the credibility of another prosecution witness and misrepresenting the testimony of another expert by claiming that he determined the child’s death was a homicide.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. He appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct during summation. The Appellate Division concluded that the defendant’s mistrial motion preserved the issues for appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the general objection was insufficient to preserve the issues.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a general objection to a prosecutor’s summation, without specifying the objectionable statements, is sufficient to preserve those statements for appellate review.

    Holding

    No, because the unelaborated general objection to “speculative facts” did not alert the court to any of the specific comments the defendant raised on appeal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a specific objection at trial, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct the error. A general objection, such as the one made by the defendant in this case, is insufficient because it does not alert the court to the specific nature of the alleged error. The court cited People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, to support this proposition. By failing to specify the objectionable statements, the defendant deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address the alleged errors and potentially mitigate any prejudice. This principle ensures fairness and efficiency in the judicial process, preventing parties from raising issues for the first time on appeal when they could have been addressed at trial. This rule also prevents sandbagging where a party remains silent hoping for a favorable verdict, but then seeks reversal based on a previously unarticulated claim of error if the verdict is unfavorable.

  • People v. Argro, 58 N.Y.2d 816 (1983): Establishing Drug Weight in Controlled Substance Sales

    People v. Argro, 58 N.Y.2d 816 (1983)

    In a conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance, the weight of the controlled substance must be independently proven and cannot solely rely on an offer to sell a particular quantity.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, despite finding fault with the reasoning of the Appellate Division. The defendant challenged the trial court’s limitation on cross-examination of the People’s expert regarding the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine and argued that the mandatory minimum sentence was disproportionate. The Court of Appeals held that the weight of the controlled substance must be independently proven and cannot be based solely on an offer to sell a specific quantity, but upheld the conviction because the expert testimony established the weight independently.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. During the trial, the People’s expert testified about the laboratory analysis of the drugs. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the expert about the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine. The Appellate Division, in affirming, had incorrectly relied on the accomplice’s offer to sell “a little bit over” two ounces of cocaine as sufficient proof of weight.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, upholding the conviction but disagreeing with the lower court’s reasoning regarding the proof of weight.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court erroneously limited cross-examination of the People’s expert regarding the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine.
    2. Whether the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
    3. Whether the weight of the controlled substance, a necessary element of the crime, can be established solely by an offer to sell a specific quantity.

    Holding

    1. No, because defense counsel failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not calling the trial court’s attention to the purpose of the question or disputing the People’s claim of irrelevance.
    2. No, to the extent any constitutional objection has been preserved for review.
    3. No, because the weight of the material must be independently shown.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s arguments regarding the limitation of cross-examination and the disproportionate sentence but found them unpreserved for appellate review. Regarding the cross-examination, the Court emphasized the importance of making known one’s position to the trial court to allow for correction of any error. As for the sentence, the court cited prior precedents (People v Donovan, 59 NY2d 834; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100) regarding constitutional objections to sentences.

    The court explicitly rejected the Appellate Division’s reasoning that the accomplice’s offer to sell “a little bit over” two ounces of cocaine was sufficient to establish the weight for the crime of first-degree sale. Citing People v Kenny, 30 NY2d 154; People v Lawson, 84 Misc 2d 24; and People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, the court clarified that while proof of an offer may establish that a sale has occurred, the weight of the material must be independently proven. The conviction was ultimately affirmed because the People’s expert testimony provided an independent basis for establishing that the cocaine weighed more than two ounces, satisfying the statutory requirement. The court stated, “While proof of an offer may in some circumstances establish that a sale has occurred (see, Penal Law § 220.00 [1]), the weight of the material must be independently shown.”

  • People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745 (1982): Preserving Repugnant Verdict Claims for Appeal

    56 N.Y.2d 745

    A claim that a verdict is repugnant must be raised at trial to be preserved for appeal, allowing the trial court to correct inconsistencies before the jury is discharged or, in a non-jury trial, by motion to set aside the verdict.

    Summary

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s argument regarding a repugnant verdict was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised at trial. The Court emphasized that alleged errors, including claims of repugnant verdicts, must be brought to the trial court’s attention so they can be addressed and corrected during the trial. In jury trials, this must occur before the jury is discharged. In non-jury trials, the issue can be raised via a motion to set aside or modify the verdict under CPL 330.30. The failure to raise the issue at trial prevents appellate review.

    Facts

    The specific facts of the underlying criminal case are not detailed in this opinion, as the appeal focuses solely on the procedural issue of preserving a repugnant verdict claim. The critical fact is that the defendant argued on appeal that the verdict was repugnant, but this argument had not been presented to the trial court.

    Procedural History

    The case proceeded to the Appellate Division, which issued an order. The defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reviewed the submissions and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, based on the defendant’s failure to preserve the repugnant verdict claim at trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant must raise an objection to a potentially repugnant verdict at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Holding

    Yes, because alleged errors must be raised at a time when they can be corrected at trial; failing to do so forfeits the right to raise the issue on appeal.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the purpose of requiring contemporaneous objections is to allow the trial court to correct errors during the trial itself. This prevents unnecessary appeals and promotes judicial efficiency. Regarding repugnant verdicts, the Court stated, “Thus in jury cases any claim that the verdict is repugnant must be made before the jury is discharged… This permits the court to resubmit the matter to the jury to obtain a consistent verdict, even if that may require changing an ‘acquittal’, on one or more counts, to a conviction.” In non-jury cases, the court can address the issue through a motion to set aside or modify the verdict. The court distinguished this case from People v. Carter, noting that Carter involved no error of law that would allow the trial court to reconsider its verdict. Here, a properly preserved claim of repugnancy presents such an issue of law. The failure to preserve the issue deprives the appellate court of the opportunity to review it. The court emphasizes the importance of raising errors at trial so that they can be corrected, stating that this is a general rule of appellate practice. The ability to correct the verdict avoids the need for potentially costly and time-consuming appeals and retrials.

  • People v. Bluitt, 66 N.Y.2d 970 (1985): Preserving Objections to Persistent Felony Offender Status

    People v. Bluitt, 66 N.Y.2d 970 (1985)

    A defendant forfeits the right to challenge the constitutionality of persistent felony offender statutes or proceedings if they fully participate in the hearing with counsel without raising objections before the trial court.

    Summary

    The defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and subsequently sentenced as a persistent felony offender. On appeal, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the statute used to determine his status as a persistent felony offender, as well as the manner in which the hearing was conducted. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the defendant participated fully in the hearing with counsel and failed to raise these objections at the trial level, he forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute or the proceeding on appeal. The court also found no abuse of due process related to the sentence enhancement sought after trial.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Following the jury verdict, a hearing was conducted under CPL 400.20 to determine if the defendant should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. The trial court determined that the defendant met the criteria for persistent felony offender status. He was then sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, with the longest having a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life.

    Procedural History

    The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that CPL 400.20 was unconstitutional and that the hearing was improperly conducted. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and the persistent felony offender hearing by failing to raise objections at the trial court level.
    2. Whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated when the prosecution sought an enhanced sentence after trial, despite offering a plea to a reduced charge before trial.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the defendant participated fully in the hearing with the aid of counsel and without asserting those objections before the trial court.
    2. No, because seeking an enhanced sentence after trial following a failed plea negotiation does not violate due process.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant’s active participation in the persistent felony offender hearing, assisted by counsel, without raising any objections to the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 or the hearing process, constituted a forfeiture of the right to raise those issues on appeal. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the trial court exceeded its sentencing powers, such as in People v. Morse. The court emphasized that objections must be timely and specific to preserve errors for appellate review.

    Regarding the due process claim, the court cited Bordenkircher v. Hayes, noting that seeking an enhanced sentence after trial following a failed plea negotiation does not violate due process. The court found no abuse of the defendant’s rights in this regard. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bordenkircher, “defendants are free to accept or reject a plea offer, and prosecutors are free to threaten or carry out more serious charges during plea negotiations.”

  • People v. Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014 (1983): Preserving Issues for Appeal; Alibi Defense

    People v. Johnson, 59 N.Y.2d 1014 (1983)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise the specific argument at trial when the alleged error can be corrected.

    Summary

    Defendant Johnson appealed his conviction, arguing that his suppression motion should have been granted and that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order. The Court held that the suppression issue was unreviewable because it involved mixed questions of law and fact supported by evidence. Additionally, the alibi defense argument was not preserved because the defendant failed to adequately inform the trial court of the basis for his request or to object to the court’s reasoning at the time of the denial.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of an unspecified crime. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, which was denied. At trial, the defendant requested the court to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense, based on his girlfriend’s statements and his own statement to the police. The trial court denied this request, noting that the girlfriend’s statements related to events after the victim’s death, according to the prosecution’s theory, and that there was no other evidence supporting an alibi defense.

    Procedural History

    The case was tried in a lower court, where the defendant was convicted. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion is reviewable on appeal, given that it involved mixed questions of law and fact supported by evidence.

    2. Whether the defendant preserved his claim that the trial court erred in denying his request to charge the jury with respect to an alibi defense.

    Holding

    1. No, because the trial court’s determinations involved mixed questions of law and fact which are supported by evidence in the record.

    2. No, because the defendant did not adequately inform the trial court of the basis for his request or object to the court’s reasoning at the time of the denial; thus, the error was not preserved for review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals found that the suppression motion issue involved mixed questions of law and fact, and because the trial court’s determinations were supported by evidence in the record, the issue was beyond review. As to the alibi defense, the Court emphasized the importance of preservation of error. The Court stated, “At the time the motion was denied the court noted that the statements of the defendant’s girlfriend did not provide an alibi because they related to events occurring after the time of the victim’s death according to the People’s theory at trial. The defendant did not dispute this conclusion at the trial nor did he object to the court’s further statement that there was no other evidence in the record supporting an alibi defense.” The Court highlighted that the defendant never informed the court of the basis for the request, specifically failing to argue that his statement to the police constituted an alibi. Because the defendant failed to bring this point to the court’s attention when the alleged error could have been corrected, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The court implicitly underscores the importance of giving the trial court the opportunity to correct its own errors.

  • People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022 (1984): Preserving Objections to Jury Instructions

    People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022 (1984)

    A defendant preserves an objection to a jury charge when the trial court expressly denies a requested charge, and no further explanation is required to avoid waiving the error.

    Summary

    This case concerns the preservation of objections to jury instructions in New York criminal procedure. The defendant requested a specific alibi charge that the People had the burden of disproving the alibi beyond a reasonable doubt, which the trial court denied. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that the alibi charge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The Court of Appeals addressed whether the defendant adequately preserved his objection to the jury charge for appellate review. The Court of Appeals held the objection was not preserved because the defendant failed to specifically object to the charge given after it was delivered.

    Facts

    The defendant was prosecuted for attempted robbery and raised an alibi defense, claiming he was not present at the scene of the crime. Prior to the jury charge, the defendant requested a specific instruction stating the People had the burden of disproving the alibi beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge expressly denied the defendant’s request.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction on the law, finding that the alibi charge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant did not properly preserve his objection to the jury charge.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant preserves a claim of error regarding a jury instruction when the defendant’s request for a specific charge is expressly denied, but the defendant fails to object specifically to the charge as given.

    Holding

    No, because to preserve a claim of error for appellate review in New York, a party must make their position known to the court, affording the court an opportunity to correct the error. A general objection is insufficient when the court has already ruled on a specific request.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals majority held that the defendant did not preserve the issue for appellate review. While the defendant initially requested a specific alibi charge, after the judge gave the jury charge, the defense counsel only made a general objection, stating he was renewing previously mentioned requests. The Court of Appeals stated, “To hold that the general objection sufficed to preserve the error would be to undermine the policy considerations which prompted the enactment of CPL 470.05 (subd 2), namely, to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct claimed error at a time when it could do so, without necessarily aborting the trial and without subjecting the People to the necessity of a new trial.”

    The dissent, authored by Chief Judge Cooke, argued that the defendant’s request for a specific charge, which was expressly denied, was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. The dissent cited CPL 470.05 (subd 2), which states that a party who has unsuccessfully requested a particular ruling is deemed to have protested the court’s ultimate disposition, regardless of whether any actual protest was registered. The dissent maintained that once a request to charge is denied, no further objection is necessary, as the judge is on notice that the defendant views any deviation from the requested charge as error. The dissent reasoned that the majority was carrying the concept of preservation too far and emphasized the importance of ensuring that the jury is properly instructed on the applicable law.

  • People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755 (1984): Admissibility of Evidence and Harmless Error Analysis

    62 N.Y.2d 755 (1984)

    A court’s evidentiary rulings will not result in reversal if there is no reasonable possibility that the rulings contributed to the defendant’s conviction and are thus considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Summary

    Defendant Malizia was convicted of felony murder, common-law murder, attempted murder, and assault. The key witness, Harry Terrell, was the brother of the deceased. Malizia appealed, arguing insufficient evidence due to Terrell’s lack of credibility and errors in evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the verdict and any evidentiary errors were harmless because Terrell’s character and criminal activities were thoroughly presented to the jury. The court also addressed the preservation of objections for appellate review.

    Facts

    William Terrell and his brother, Harry, drove to a deserted street to meet Malizia to buy drugs and pay for past purchases. Harry waited in the car while William met with Malizia and others. The jury found that Malizia shot William and then attempted to kill Harry as he fled. William’s body was later found several miles away.

    Procedural History

    An initial trial resulted in a hung jury. Malizia was convicted in a second trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Malizia appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts, considering the credibility of the People’s main witness.

    2. Whether the trial court made reversible errors in its evidentiary rulings regarding Harry Terrell’s testimony and cross-examination.

    3. Whether objections to certain testimony were properly preserved for appellate review.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the record contains sufficient evidence in quantity and quality to support the verdicts, and credibility is a matter for the jury to determine.

    2. No, because even if the court erred in its evidentiary rulings, there was no reasonable possibility that these rulings contributed to the defendant’s conviction; thus, any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

    3. No, because the defendant did not properly object to the testimony at the second trial, nor did he bring the prior ruling to the attention of the second judge.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, acknowledging that credibility is for the jury to decide. Finding sufficient evidence to support the verdicts, the court deferred to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility.

    Regarding evidentiary rulings, the court applied the harmless error standard from People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, stating that reversal is not required if there was no reasonable possibility that the rulings contributed to the conviction. The court noted that Harry Terrell’s extensive criminal history was fully presented to the jury, mitigating any potential prejudice from the challenged rulings.

    The court addressed the defendant’s claim that a prior evidentiary ruling from the first trial was binding in the second trial as the “law of the case.” The court rejected this argument, explaining that evidentiary rulings from one trial are generally not binding in subsequent trials, especially when the prior ruling was not brought to the attention of the second judge. Furthermore, the defendant failed to properly object to the testimony at the second trial. As such, the court determined that this argument was not preserved for appellate review.

    The court emphasized the need for specific and timely objections to preserve issues for appeal. The court stated, “Evidentiary rulings made at one trial, however, are normally not binding in a subsequent trial. In this case there is nothing in the record to indicate that the earlier ruling was brought to the attention of the second Judge or that he or counsel considered themselves bound by it.”

  • People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273 (1992): Preserving Sentencing Errors for Appellate Review

    People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273 (1992)

    A claim that a sentencing court misunderstood the effect of minimum sentences on parole eligibility must be raised at the time of sentencing or in a motion for resentencing to be preserved for appellate review.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s claim that the sentencing court misunderstood the effect of consecutive minimum sentences on his parole eligibility was not preserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to bring this alleged error to the court’s attention at the time of sentencing or via a motion for resentencing. The Court emphasized that to preserve such a claim, the defendant must give the sentencing court an opportunity to correct the purported error.

    Facts

    The defendant was sentenced to consecutive minimum terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argued that the sentencing court misunderstood the effect these minimum sentences would have on his ability to obtain parole.

    Procedural History

    The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after an unspecified lower court ruling. The Court of Appeals reviewed the submissions and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, which presumably upheld the original sentence.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant’s claim that the sentencing court misunderstood the impact of minimum sentences on parole eligibility is preserved for appellate review if the defendant fails to raise the issue at the time of sentencing or in a motion for resentencing.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant did not bring the alleged misunderstanding to the court’s attention during sentencing or through a motion for resentencing, thereby failing to preserve the issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals based its decision on the principle that errors of law must be preserved for appellate review. The Court distinguished the defendant’s claim from one where the sentencing court exceeded its statutory authority. Here, the defendant argued that the court misunderstood the *effect* of the sentence, not that the sentence itself was illegal. The Court stated, “The defendant, however, did not bring this point to the court’s attention at the time of the sentence, or by way of a motion for resentence, and thus no error of law has been preserved for our review.” By failing to alert the sentencing court to the alleged error, the defendant deprived the court of the opportunity to correct it. This is a crucial aspect of error preservation. The court cited People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905 to support the holding. The court also considered the defendant’s other contentions and found them without merit, but this preservation issue was the key point in the decision. This case emphasizes the importance of timely objections and motions in preserving legal issues for appeal. A defendant cannot wait until appeal to raise an issue that could have been addressed and potentially corrected at the trial level.

  • People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971 (1984): Sufficiency of Evidence for Depraved Indifference Murder

    People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971 (1984)

    Evidence of multiple shots fired at a group of people running away is sufficient to present a question for the jury as to whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder. The court held that the evidence presented—the number of shots fired, the number of people targeted, and their attempts to flee—sufficiently established a question for the jury regarding the defendant’s depraved indifference to human life. The court also found that the jury was properly charged on the definition of “depraved indifference”. An argument concerning the reliability of information from a citizen informant was deemed unpreserved for review.

    Facts

    The defendant fired multiple shots at a group of people who were running towards the door of a poolroom, attempting to escape from him. The defendant was subsequently charged and convicted of depraved indifference murder.

    Procedural History

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

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

    2. Whether the argument that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed due to the unestablished reliability of a citizen informant was preserved for review.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the number of shots fired, the number of persons fired at, and the fact that they were running away were sufficient to present a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced “a depraved indifference to human life”.

    2. No, because the issue of reliability was not properly raised in the defendant’s motion papers or during the hearing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the circumstances of the shooting, while perhaps not as egregious as in other cases (e.g., People v. Register), were sufficient to allow a jury to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life. The court emphasized that the jury was instructed to find the defendant’s conduct “beyond being reckless * * * so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes the death of another.” The court emphasized that because there was enough evidence, and the jury was properly instructed, the conviction had to stand.

    Regarding the defendant’s argument about suppressing his statements, the court found it unpreserved because the reliability of the citizen informant was not properly challenged in the initial motion or during the hearing. The court cited People v. Weston and People v. Jenkins to support its position that a peripheral reference during argument is insufficient to preserve an issue for review.