AD4: defense counsel must (still) make specific TOD and renew it at the close of all proof to preserve sufficiency arguments on appeal

People v Skupien, 2006 NY Slip Op 09890 [available here]

People v Picente, 2006 NY Slip Op 09806 [available here]

Once again driving home what should (by now) be a settled matter of practice for New York criminal defense attorneys, the Fourth Department twice this term found legal sufficiency arguments unpreserved for review based on defense counsel's failure to make a specific motion for a trial order of dismissal and/or failing to renew that motion at the close of all proof. (See Picente, 2006 NY Slip Op 09806 [legal sufficiency argument not preserved where defense counsel's TOD motion "did not seek dismissal of the counts at issue on [the] ground" advanced on appeal]; Skupien, 2006 NY Slip Op 09890 ["Defendant failed to specify the basis for seeking dismissal of the remaining counts and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to those counts"].)