Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the court gave improper instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, and the defendant's right not to testify ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, when viewed as a whole, the court's charge properly conveyed to the jury the concepts of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence ( see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; see also, People v. Rodriguez, 220 A.D.2d 701). Moreover, the record indicates that the language used by the court regarding the defendant's right not to testify was neutral in tone, did not imply that the failure to testify was merely a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right, and was not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify ( see, People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725; see also, People v. Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651). Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.