Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A court in its charge need not marshal all the evidence, but must "state the material legal principles applicable to the particular case" (CPL 300.10; People v. James, 194 A.D.2d 558). "Nor is the court required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all the inconsistencies in the evidence" (People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667; see also, People v. James, supra). However, if the court does refer to the evidence, it must do so fairly and in an even-handed manner (People v. Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073, 1074; see also, People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied 439 U.S. 1047; People v Waters, 195 A.D.2d 613; People v James, supra). "The critical issue on review is always whether [the] deficiency by [the court] in that respect denied defendant a fair trial" (People v. Saunders, supra, at 667).
Here, it cannot be said that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. The court marshaled the evidence in an even-handed manner and did not give undue emphasis to the People's evidence or theories. In addition, the court instructed the jurors that nothing the court stated was evidence, and that the jurors were "the exclusive judges of the facts, and * * * what I may say during the course of this charge by way of illustration or just so that you understand the relevance of certain points of law, should in no way be taken by you as suggesting that I think you should reach a particular verdict".
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.