New York Criminal Attorney Blog
If you are facing a serious charge like assault in New York, your right to a fair trial includes more than just a competent defense—it includes how the jury is instructed on evaluating eyewitness testimony. In People v. Salas, the New York Court of Appeals tackled a defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the potential challenges of cross-racial identification. The decision highlights how preserved objections and thorough jury instructions can shape the outcome of a criminal case.
Facts of the Case
The prosecution charged Salas with second-degree assault following a 2019 altercation in Manhattan. During trial, the People relied heavily on testimony from the victim, who identified Salas as his attacker. The identification was made after a single-photo display, and the victim and Salas were of different racial backgrounds.
Salas did not dispute that an incident occurred but denied being involved. His defense emphasized that the identification process was suggestive and unreliable, particularly given the cross-racial aspect of the identification.
During the charge conference, the defense asked the judge to instruct the jury using the Murray instruction—a model that addresses the difficulties individuals may face when identifying someone of another race. The court declined to give that full instruction but agreed to include general language on evaluating witness reliability, including “race, ethnicity, and age.” Salas was ultimately convicted.
The Law on Cross-Racial Identification Instructions
In People v. Boone, 30 N.Y.3d 521 (2017), the Court of Appeals held that trial courts must, upon request, provide a jury instruction on the reliability issues involved in cross-racial identification when identification is at issue and the defendant and witness are of different races.
The Boone ruling was clear: if a defendant requests the charge, and there is a factual basis for it, the court must provide it. A mere generic instruction about eyewitness reliability does not satisfy this requirement. The goal is to address well-documented psychological evidence that people are less accurate when identifying individuals of a different race.
How the Court Applied the Law in Salas
Salas’s appeal centered on the court’s refusal to give the full Murray cross-racial identification charge. However, the Court of Appeals found that Salas had not adequately preserved this issue for appellate review. At trial, his attorney asked for the charge but accepted the court’s modified instruction when the judge said, “I’ll give it to them in general terms.”
Because the defense did not explicitly object after hearing the court’s proposed charge—or renew the request for the full instruction—the Court of Appeals ruled that the issue was not properly preserved under CPL 470.05(2). Therefore, the court reviewed only for a mode of proceedings error, and none was found.
Even though the trial court failed to deliver the complete instruction outlined in Boone, the Court found that the modified language given—while insufficient if challenged properly—did not rise to the level of a fundamental violation that would justify reversing the conviction without a preserved objection.
Why This Case Matters
This decision is a reminder that legal rights must be timely asserted and clearly preserved at trial. The failure to object to the court’s final charge language meant the appellate court had no choice but to uphold the verdict, despite potential merit in the underlying argument.
For anyone accused of a crime, this underscores the importance of having a defense attorney who not only knows the law but also understands how to protect your rights at every stage. It is not enough to ask for the right instruction—the record must reflect that your attorney stood firm when the judge did not comply.
Get the Trial-Level Advocacy You Deserve
At Tilem & Associates, P.C., we fight for your rights at trial and beyond. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges related to a violent crime in New York, you need a defense team that pays attention to every detail, from pre-trial motions to jury instructions. Call us today at (877) 377-8666 to schedule your confidential consultation. You have rights. We are here to defend them.