Generally, a claim of error is available as a basis for reversal of a judgment on appeal only if preserved by an appropriate objection or motion at the trial level. Indeed, the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review unpreserved issues except in a few narrow instances. And, while the Appellate Division possesses “interest of justice” jurisdiction to review an unpreserved claim of error, such jurisdiction is exercised quite sparingly.
This month, we examine People v. Finch,1 in which the Court of Appeals held in a 4-3 decision that “where a defendant has unsuccessfully argued before trial that the facts alleged by the People do not constitute the crime charged, and the court has rejected the argument, defendant need not specifically repeat the argument in a trial motion to dismiss in order to preserve the point.” The court stated that “a lawyer is not required, in order to preserve a point, to repeat an argument that the court has definitively rejected.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
