People v. Robinson

Decision Date20 February 1975
Citation367 N.Y.S.2d 208,36 N.Y.2d 224,326 N.E.2d 784
Parties, 326 N.E.2d 784 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul ROBINSON, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Ronald M. Kleinberg, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (J. Mitchell Rosenberg, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

COOKE, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether an alleged error in the trial court's charge to the jury, to which no exception was taken, is reviewable in this court on the theory that defendant was deprived of a fair trial.

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of the crimes of murder, attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted grand larceny in the third degree. He admitted that on August 13, 1971, he was present during an attempted robbery of a couple in Lincoln Terrace Park by his two companions, George and Gargo (both of whom were dead at the time of trial). During the course of the attempted robbery, one of the victims, Germaine Philips, was shot by either George or Gargo and subsequently died from the wound. Defendant denied knowing that either of his companions was planning to commit a crime or that they were armed. He also denied any participation in the attempted robbery or larceny.

Alberto Greene, the other victim of the crime, testified that two of his assailants were armed, one with a gun, the other with a knife. The third, admittedly the defendant, was apparently unarmed. However, he testified that this third participant cut off his path of escape in the course of the robbery attempt by stepping towards a wall.

Another witness, Rudolph Mills, testified that earlier that evening, defendant and Gargo left his apartment after one of them said he needed money urgently. Defendant had informed Mills that George had a gun. Detective Philip Iannuccilli, to whom defendant first revealed his presence at the scene of the crime, testified that defendant stated that on that fateful night 'they were looking for a prostitute and a pimp * * * to take them off.'

These facts would warrant a jury finding that defendant, acting with the requisite culpable mental state, intentionally aided George and Gargo in the commission of the crime of attempted robbery during which one of the participants, known to him to be armed, caused the death of a victim (Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, §§ 20.00, 110.00, 160.15, 125.25, subd. 3, pars. (c), (d)).

The charge to the jury left something to be desired. In at least two places it misstated a fact by informing the jury that defendant had interposed an affirmative defense (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 3). There was no basis in fact for that statement since defendant had denied all knowledge of and participation in the underlying crimes. At other times, the statement of the applicable law was confusing and misleading. Illustrative of the latter defect is the court's statement: 'The People have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt Except in certain instances' (emphasis supplied).

However, the charge, read as a whole, though ineptly phrased, correctly informed the jury that the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was upon the People and that, if defendant was found guilty of attempted robbery, the burden of proof of the affirmative defense to felony murder was upon him to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

No request to charge made by defense counsel was rejected by the court and, at the conclusion of the corrective statements requested by counsel, in response to a question by the Trial Judge, said counsel declared 'I have no exceptions.'

Except in the instance of an appeal taken directly to the Court of Appeals pursuant to CPL 450.70 and 450.80, Consol.Laws, c. 11--A, applicable to capital cases, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in criminal cases is limited to considering questions of law (CPL 470.35). With respect to a ruling or instruction of a criminal court during a trial or proceeding, a question of law is presented 'when a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling or instruction or at any subsequent time When the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same.' (CPL 470.05, subd. 2 (emphasis supplied).) The failure to object to the charge in this case or to request further clarifications at a time when the error complained of could readily have been corrected preserved no questions of law reviewable in this court (People v. Reynolds, 25 N.Y.2d 489, 307 N.Y.S.2d 201, 255 N.E.2d 548; People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 251, 299 N.Y.S.2d 817, 826, 247 N.E.2d 642, 648, cert. den. 396 U.S. 846, 90 S.Ct. 103, 24 L.Ed.2d 96; People v. Simons,22 N.Y.2d 533, 541, 293 N.Y.S.2d 521, 527, 240 N.E.2d 22, 26, cert. den.393 U.S. 1107, 89 S.Ct. 915, 21 L.Ed.2d 803; People v. Adams, 21 N.Y.2d 397, 403, 288 N.Y.S.2d 225, 228, 235 N.E.2d 214, 216). We 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.

Although this court cannot review the alleged errors in the charge for the reasons indicated, appellant has not been deprived of a forum in which his arguments can be heard. We recognize that the Appellate Division is statutorily empowered to 'consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant' (CPL 470.15, subd. 1), even though no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
118 cases
  • Minor v. Harris
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 4, 1983
    ...error. The interest-of-justice jurisdiction under § 470.15 is not invoked routinely. See, e.g., People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 228-29, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208, 326 N.E.2d 784 (1975). Therefore, we feel justified in assuming that the Appellate Division does not exercise its discretion under the......
  • v. Allen
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1979
    ...89 S.Ct. 1354, 1361-1362, 22 L.Ed.2d 572. Although this exception has been narrowed more recently, e. g., People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208, 326 N.E.2d 784 (1975), it continues to have currency within the State where there has been a denial of a "fair trial." E. g., La Roc......
  • Mills v. Girdich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • May 15, 2009
    ...performed. Quirama, 983 F.2d at 14 (citing Martinez v. Harris[, 675 F.2d 51 (2nd Cir.1982)])(citing People v. Robinson[, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208, 326 N.E.2d 784 (1975)]). Given the clear lack of preservation, it cannot be said that appellate counsel was unreasonable in declining to,......
  • Robinson v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 17, 2011
    ...at trial, the defendants' appellate challenges to the charge present no reviewable question of law."); People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 228, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208, 211 (1975) ("The failure to object to the charge in this case or to request further clarifications at a time when the error compla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 books & journal articles
  • Judicial conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...or law even in the absence of an objection in the interests of justice, and may reverse and remand for a new trial. People v. Robinson , 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1975); People v. Samuels, 22 AD.3d 507, 802 N.Y.S.2d 458 (2d Dept. 2005) (instructing defendant that he was not to discus......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...N.Y.S.2d 421 (1st Dept. 2001), § 5:190 People v. Robinson, 283 A.D.2d 989, 725 N.Y.S.2d 505 (4th Dept. 2001), § 5:200 People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1975), §§ 1:40, 1:50, 1:60, 17:40 People v. Robinson, 89 N.Y.2d 648, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575 (1997), § 5:90 People v. Roblee, 7......
  • Objections & related procedures
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...court may preclude admission of improper evidence on its own motion, and must do so to prevent fundamental error. People v. Robinson , 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1975). However, courts generally receive all evidence presented unless the evidence is objected to by a party. Once evidenc......
  • Judicial conduct
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ...or law even in the absence of an objection in the interests of justice, and may reverse and remand for a new trial. People v. Robinson , 36 N.Y.2d 224, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1975); People v. Samuels, 22 AD.3d 507, 802 N.Y.S.2d 458 (2d Dept. 2005) (instructing defendant that he was not to discus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT