Opinion
March 31, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The court's instructions on reasonable doubt do not warrant reversal. In its instructions as to reasonable doubt, the trial court referred to establishing guilt to a "moral certainty", as well as to wavering minds and even scales. Such language was improper (see, People v. Cousart, 74 A.D.2d 877; People v McCray, 57 A.D.2d 632). However, an examination of the entire charge indicates that the concept of reasonable doubt was accurately explained to the jury (see, People v. Ortiz, 92 A.D.2d 595, 596; see also, People v. Turrell, 66 A.D.2d 862, affd 50 N.Y.2d 400, cert denied sub nom. Pena v. New York, 449 U.S. 1087; People v. Giammarino, 105 A.D.2d 802; People v. Townes, 104 A.D.2d 1057). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.