People v. Slacks

• Decision Date: 25 March 1996
• Citation: 639 N.Y.S.2d 950,225 A.D.2d 805
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Reuben SLACKS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 950

639 N.Y.S.2d 950

225 A.D.2d 805

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Reuben SLACKS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 25, 1996.

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Nancy E. Little, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Robin A. Forshaw, and Nicholas M. Satriano, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 1, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that reversible error took place by the court's references to the trial as a "search for the truth". The record demonstrates that the court's charge, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards applicable to the case and included accurate instructions regarding the burden of proof (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 523 N.Y.S.2d 433, 517 N.E.2d 1319; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 469 N.Y.S.2d 693, 457 N.E.2d 800). Accordingly, the challenged references did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see, People v. Brown, 209 A.D.2d 428, 618 N.Y.S.2d 439; People v. Griffith, 200 A.D.2d 760, 607 N.Y.S.2d 96; People v. Simpson, 178 A.D.2d 500, 576 N.Y.S.2d 826; People v. Graziano, 151 A.D.2d 775, 543 N.Y.S.2d 107).

We have considered the other alleged charge errors raised by the defendant and find them to be patently without merit. The defendant's remaining contentions have not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 511 N.Y.S.2d 586, 503 N.E.2d 1017; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668), and, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to reach those contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, PIZZUTO and McGINITY, JJ., concur.