New York Law Review

Tag: supplemental jury instructions

  • People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995): Preserving Objections for Appellate Review

    People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must raise a specific objection at the time of the alleged error, giving the trial court an opportunity to correct it; a new or different objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and assault after shooting his neighbor. During jury deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge, which the court declined, offering them the opportunity to take notes instead. Later, jurors orally requested instructions on intoxication, intent, and other issues. Defendant moved for a mistrial, objecting to the oral questions but not to the note-taking or the lack of opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions beforehand. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to preserve his appellate claims by not raising timely and specific objections at trial.

    Facts

    The defendant argued with his neighbor about his dog and subsequently shot the neighbor. The jury rejected the defendant’s alibi defense and convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, as well as assault in the second and third degrees. During deliberations, the jury requested a written list of elements for each charge.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted after a jury trial. He appealed, raising issues related to the jury’s note-taking during supplemental instructions and the court’s handling of oral questions from the jury. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue of the jury taking notes during supplemental instructions when he failed to object at the time the court permitted note-taking and, in fact, objected to a subsequent cautionary instruction on note-taking.

    2. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review the issue that he was denied an opportunity to discuss with the court supplemental instructions before they were given to the jury, when his only objection at trial was that the oral questions did not permit him to preserve the jury’s queries.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant did not object to the note-taking when it occurred and later objected to a cautionary instruction, thereby waiving any claim regarding the need for such instructions.

    2. No, because the defendant’s objection at trial was based on a different ground than the argument he raised on appeal, specifically that he was denied the opportunity to discuss the supplemental instructions with the court before they were given.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of raising timely and specific objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review. The court stated that, regarding the note-taking, “at the time the court permitted the jurors to take notes, there was no objection and no request for cautionary instructions.” Furthermore, when the prosecutor requested cautionary instructions, “the defendant objected, thereby waiving any claim he might have had regarding the need for cautionary instructions.”

    Regarding the supplemental instructions, the court cited People v. O’Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, which indicates a defendant should have an opportunity to discuss proposed answers to jurors’ questions. However, the court found that the defendant’s objection at trial only pertained to the lack of a clear record of the jury’s questions, not the denial of an opportunity to confer on the instructions. The court cited People v. DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801, to reinforce the principle that a claim must be properly preserved to be reviewable on appeal. The court reasoned that the purpose of requiring a specific objection is to give the trial court the opportunity to correct the error. By failing to raise the specific objection at trial, the defendant deprived the court of that opportunity, and the issue was therefore not preserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals thus reinforced the idea that objections need to be clear and contemporaneous to the error to allow for proper judicial consideration and correction at trial.

  • Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31 (1980): Preserving Objections for Appeal

    Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31 (1980)

    To preserve an objection for appellate review, counsel must make a specific and timely objection, and a general objection without requesting additional clarification or instruction is insufficient.

    Summary

    In a personal injury action, after initial deliberations, the jury announced a split verdict. Defense counsel objected, claiming inconsistency and excessiveness. The trial court, over objection, reinstructed the jury to reconsider. Defense counsel again objected generally but without specific requests for clarification. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defense counsel’s failure to properly preserve objections to the court’s procedure and supplemental instructions precluded appellate review. The Court emphasized the importance of specific and timely objections to allow the trial court to correct any errors.

    Facts

    During deliberations in a personal injury case, the jury initially delivered a verdict awarding $500,000 for personal suffering and disability, and $350,000 for negligence. Defense counsel objected, arguing the verdict was inconsistent and excessive. The trial court, instead of declaring a mistrial, decided to provide supplemental instructions to the jury and direct them to reconsider their decision. The defense counsel made a general objection to this procedure.

    Procedural History

    The trial court reinstructed the jury after the initial verdict. Defense counsel objected generally, without requesting specific clarifying instructions. The jury then rendered a subsequent verdict of $850,000, upon which judgment was entered. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defense counsel’s general objection to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, without requesting additional or clarifying instructions, was sufficient to preserve the objection for appellate review.

    Holding

    No, because the defense counsel failed to make specific objections or requests for clarification to the supplemental instructions. This failure to properly preserve their objections precluded appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the necessity of preserving objections to allow trial courts the opportunity to correct errors. The court noted that “In view of counsels’ failure to preserve their objections to the procedure adopted by the court and to its supplemental instructions by appropriate exceptions or requests, no legal error is presented.” By lodging only a general objection, and by failing to request additional or clarifying instructions, the defense forfeited the right to raise the issue on appeal. The Court found that the jury’s subsequent verdict of $850,000 was properly received as defense counsel did not properly object to the courts instructions.

  • People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725 (1978): Permissible Encouragement vs. Coercion of Jury Verdicts

    People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725 (1978)

    A trial court may encourage jurors to adhere to their oaths and make one final effort to review the evidence and reach a verdict, but it must not coerce or compel the jury to reach a particular verdict.

    Summary

    After five hours of deliberation, a jury was unable to reach a verdict. The trial judge gave a supplemental charge encouraging them to renew their deliberations. Approximately 90 minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge’s supplemental instructions were coercive. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the judge’s approach was not ideal, the instructions did not amount to impermissible coercion because the judge simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations without singling out jurors or threatening them.

    Facts

    The jury deliberated for five hours without reaching a verdict.

    The trial court instructed the jury that the case was simple compared to others, some of which last months, but that the jury was expected to come to a verdict.

    The court noted that sometimes juries cannot reach a verdict and that a deadlock had occurred recently in a more involved case.

    The court urged the jury to renew deliberations and to “make every effort possible to arrive at a verdict.”

    Approximately one and a half hours later, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted after a jury trial.

    The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury were impermissibly coercive.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

    The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury, given after the jury announced it was unable to reach a verdict, were impermissibly coercive.

    Holding

    No, because the trial judge simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations. The judge did not impermissibly single out jurors for noncompliance with the majority, nor were any jurors improperly threatened.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a trial judge must not coerce or compel a jury to agree upon a particular verdict, citing People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259. The court stated that supplemental charges which prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure to reach an agreement will not be countenanced.

    However, the court also recognized that a trial court may properly discharge its responsibility to avoid mistrials by encouraging jurors to adhere to their oaths and make one final effort to review the evidence and reach a verdict, citing People v. Faber, supra, p. 258.

    The court distinguished the present case from cases where the supplemental charge was found to be coercive. The court found that the trial judge in this case simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations. The judge did not single out any jurors, threaten them, or suggest that the jury would be forced to continue deliberations indefinitely without communication. The court noted that the defendant’s general objection was unsupported by a timely request for an additional charge.

    The court emphasized that while the trial judge’s approach may not have been ideal, it did not cross the line into impermissible coercion.