Opinion
August 23, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.).
In this prosecution for third degree criminal sale of a controlled substance arising out of the sale by the defendant of two glassine envelopes of heroin to an undercover police officer, the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court's reasonable doubt charge is unpreserved. Were we to reach in the interest of justice, we would note that the New York Court of Appeals has approved similar language, i.e., that a reasonable doubt is one for which a juror could give a reason if called upon to do so (1 CJI[NY] 2.51, 3.07, 6.20 [1983]; People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 300, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v Jones, 27 N.Y.2d 222, 226). Moreover, the charge, when read as a whole, clearly conveyed to the jurors that the People were required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Fox, 72 A.D.2d 146, 147), and any error in the charge should be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.