From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Quinones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 20, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor's statements during his opening remarks were proper and those made during summation were not sufficiently objectionable as to justify reversal, especially when considered in the light of the statements made by the defense counsel attacking the credibility of the People's witnesses and suggesting that the defendant could not understand English well (see, People v Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151; People v Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473; People v Pagan, 63 A.D.2d 687). In any event, and in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, it cannot be said that he suffered any substantial prejudice as a result of the prosecutor's statements (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).

The court's charge on the definition of reasonable doubt was complete and accurate. It was not error for the court to instruct the jury that if they had a doubt upon which they believed "a reasonable person [would] hesitate to act", that was a reasonable doubt (see, United States v Ivic, 700 F.2d 51, 69, n 11). Nor was it error for the court to tell the jury that a reasonable doubt "is a doubt for which a juror can give a reason if he is called upon to do so in the jury room" (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 300, 303, cert denied 459 U.S. 847). Overall, the effect of these statements, when considered with the rest of the charge on reasonable doubt, was to properly inform the jury that a reasonable doubt was not a doubt based on "`a whim, sympathy or some other vague reason'", but rather a doubt which was reasonably based on the evidence or lack of evidence (see, People v Malloy, supra, p 303, quoting from People v Jones, 27 N.Y.2d 222, 227). Further, as a whole, the court's charge on reasonable doubt compared favorably with that recommended in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 1 CJI [NY] 6.20), and correctly conveyed to the jury the proper standard of proof (see, People v Blackshear, 112 A.D.2d 1044, 1045). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Quinones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 1986
123 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Quinones

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROSARIO QUINONES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 20, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

State v. Francis

Most jurisdictions have upheld the use of language similar to the instruction in the present case. See, e.g.,…

People v. Williams

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against…