Opinion
June 22, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court's charge on intent impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him (see, Sandstrom v Montana, 442 U.S. 510). While the charge used here was disapproved in People v Green ( 50 N.Y.2d 891, cert denied 449 U.S. 957), the Court of Appeals determined that it did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Furthermore, any error would be harmless here given the overwhelming proof of the defendant's intent to commit the crimes charged (see, Rose v Clark, 478 US ___, 106 S Ct 3101; People v Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407).
We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court should have given curative instructions to the jury regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination of one of the defendant's character witnesses about his knowledge of the defendant's prior arrest (see, e.g., People v Kuss, 32 N.Y.2d 436, cert denied 415 U.S. 913). Nevertheless, there is no substantial probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had curative instructions been given, and we find the error to be harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Eiber, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.