People v. Leisner
73 N.Y.2d 140, 538 N.Y.S.2d 517, 535 N.E.2d 647 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a reasonable view of the evidence supports the possibility that multiple, separate criminal conspiracies existed rather than the single, overarching conspiracy charged in the indictment, the trial court must grant a defendant's request to instruct the jury on the multiple conspiracies theory.
Facts:
- Morris Leisner and Max Marx owned several rent-controlled apartment buildings in Manhattan, some individually and some jointly.
- Between December 1978 and July 1980, Leisner and Marx hired Morris Lender and Hardman P. Lambert to force tenants to abandon their apartments.
- Lender and Lambert's methods included installing drug addicts, pimps, and prostitutes in the buildings to harass tenants.
- Their tactics escalated to include threats, intimidation, breaking into apartments, and vandalizing or stealing property.
- The alleged purpose of these actions was to empty the buildings of rent-controlled tenants to increase the properties' resale value.
- The prosecution alleged a single, integrated conspiracy involving all buildings, while the defendants argued that if any conspiracies existed, they were separate schemes corresponding to the different building ownerships (Leisner's, Marx's, and jointly owned).
Procedural Posture:
- Morris Leisner and Max Marx were indicted on December 14, 1984, on charges including conspiracy and attempted extortion.
- At their trial in the state's trial court, the defendants submitted written requests for jury instructions on the statute of limitations and on a multiple conspiracies theory.
- The trial court failed to give either of the requested instructions to the jury.
- The jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy in the fourth degree.
- The defendants (as appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants had waived their objection regarding the statute of limitations charge.
- The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When evidence presented at trial could reasonably support a finding of either a single conspiracy as charged or multiple separate conspiracies, does a trial court commit reversible error by refusing a defendant's request to instruct the jury on the possibility of multiple conspiracies?
Opinions:
Majority - Titone, J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on a multiple conspiracies theory when a reasonable view of the evidence supports it. Because the clarity of the jury charge is crucial in complex conspiracy trials, an instruction explicitly recognizing the possibility of multiple conspiracies is required whenever supported by the evidence. In this case, testimony indicated that Marx had no involvement in the buildings owned solely by Leisner, and vice versa, which provided a reasonable basis for the jury to find separate conspiracies rather than the single, overarching one alleged by the prosecution. The court also held that the trial court committed a separate reversible error by failing to instruct the jury, as requested, that it must find at least one overt act was committed within the five-year statute of limitations to convict on the conspiracy charge, especially since a majority of the alleged acts were outside this period.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant procedural safeguard for defendants in New York conspiracy prosecutions, aligning state law with established federal principles. It mandates that when the facts can be reasonably interpreted to show separate criminal plots, the jury must be instructed to consider that possibility. This prevents the prosecution from gaining an unfair advantage by bundling potentially unrelated criminal acts into a single, broad conspiracy charge, which could lead to prejudice and juror confusion. The ruling reinforces the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder regarding the scope and nature of a conspiratorial agreement.
