Opinion
Submitted June 25, 1999
October 4, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court committed reversible error when it instructed the jurors that a reasonable doubt was one for which a juror could provide a reason. In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's instruction as a whole conveyed the appropriate principle of law. The language employed properly conveyed that a reasonable doubt was a doubt for which a juror could give a reason if called upon to do so in the jury room ( see, People v. Robinson, 218 A.D.2d 673, affd 88 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Hammond, 143 A.D.2d 1043). "That jurors be able to give a reason for their doubt if called upon to do so in the jury room is an appropriate instruction as a basic tenet of the jury deliberation process" ( People v. Rivera, 180 A.D.2d 560, 561; see, People v. Robinson, supra; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 10).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.