Opinion
June 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.).
The subway car confrontation, during which defendant and his two companions intimidated the victim, seized his Walkman radio and headset, prevented his exit from the train, and threw the victim against the doors of the car, satisfied the requirement for a forcible taking (Penal Law § 160.00). Neither the prosecutor's comments during summation nor the court's instructions to the jury were preserved for appellate review by appropriate objection, but even if they had been, we would affirm. In particular, the defense theory that the victim had voluntarily surrendered his property without force, in order to avoid a confrontation, was patently absurd, and deserved to be characterized as such in the prosecutor's summation. As for the court's instructions on reasonable doubt, the adjuration that jurors be able to give a reason for their doubt if called upon to do so in the jury room was appropriate (People v. Quinones, 123 A.D.2d 793), as a basic tenet of the jury deliberative process.
Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.