Opinion
October 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.).
Since defendant's appearance had changed from the time of his arrest, his arrest photograph was relevant to the issue of identification and properly admitted (People v. McCorkel, 164 A.D.2d 799). And since it was clearly established that the photograph was taken at the time of defendant's current arrest, it could not have alerted the jury to the fact that he had a prior criminal record (supra).
Read as a whole, the court's identification and reasonable doubt charges informed the jury of the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832). The mere use of "wavering minds" language in a reasonable doubt charge does not warrant reversal where the charge as a whole correctly conveyed the meaning of a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Fox, 72 A.D.2d 146, 147).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.