People v. Hoke
N.Y.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2021People v. Cooper N.Y. App. Div.
- 2016People v. Thomas N.Y. App. Div.
- 2015People v. Handel N.Y. App. Div.
- 2013State v. Leath Tenn. Crim. App.
- 2011People v. Lugo N.Y. App. Div.
- 2010People v. Reyes N.Y. App. Div.
- 2009People v. Hesterbay N.Y. App. Div.
- 2008People v. Brown N.Y. App. Div.
- 2007Fong v. Poole S.D.N.Y.
- 2006People v. George N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 1 case
- People v. Dercole
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Douglas Hoke, Respondent.
Judges
- Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler and Kaye concur; Chief Judge Cooke dissents and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Judges Meyer and Simons concur.
Attorneys
- Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (George H. Barber of counsel), for appellant.
- Douglas P. Rutnik, Public Defender (Shawn D. Flaherty of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The appeal should be dismissed.
Although the Appellate Division order states that reversal of defendant’s conviction was on the law, the opinion reveals that it was in fact based upon an exercise of discretion. After the trial court had denied defendant’s requested alibi charge and, in its place, given a different alibi charge, defendant did not specify why the charge as given was inadequate. Thus, while there was preservation as to the court’s refusal to charge in accordance with defendant’s request, there was no preservation with respect to error in the alibi charge as given. The Appellate Division reversal was not grounded in the failure to charge as requested, but in its conclusion that the trial court’s alibi instructions as given were burden-shifting. Accordingly, its determination rested on an exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction, and does not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate for review by this court (CPL 450.90, subd 2). (See People v Dercole, 52 NY2d 956.)
Far from carrying “the concept of preservation much too far” (dissent, at p 1024), the requirement of specific objection in these circumstances serves a salutary purpose. Defense counsel, having heard the charge as given and knowing best how it fails to satisfy his request, by objection at that point gives the court the opportunity to correct any error.