Opinion
February 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.).
Defendant was arrested after selling two glassine envelopes of heroin to an undercover officer. A search of defendant's person recovered six glassine envelopes of heroin and prerecorded buy money.
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the trial court's ruling, precluding inquiry into the underlying facts of any of his prior convictions, was circumvented when the prosecutor questioned him about his alleged use of aliases.
There is no per se rule limiting cross-examination regarding the use of aliases (see, People v. Roberts, 163 A.D.2d 120, 121, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 943). Even if such inquiry were considered to be error, the questioning was "limited [and] essentially innocuous", and in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, could not have unduly contributed to defendant's conviction or otherwise deprived him of a fair trial (supra, at 121). Furthermore, the impact of the prosecutor's inquiry was diffused by defendant's explanation that the alleged aliases were merely nicknames used by his friends in a joking manner, as well as by the court's proper instruction to the jury "that the testimony concerning the defendant's names [could] not be used for any purposes, except as it [might or might not] have an affect upon [the defendant's] credibility." (Supra, at 121.)
Defendant's contention that the court's reasonable doubt charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review ( People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. If we were to reach the issue in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit. That jurors be able to give a reason for their doubt if called upon to do so in the jury room is an appropriate instruction as a basic tenet of the jury deliberation process (People v. Jones, 162 A.D.2d 204, 205, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 859).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.