Opinion
February 4, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.).
The court properly instructed the jury, over defendant's exception, that the People, in sustaining their burden of proof, were not required to take any particular investigative steps or present any particular kind of evidence. This instruction, when read together with the court's other instructions, particularly those explaining reasonable doubt and cautioning against speculation as to hypothetical evidence, was sufficiently balanced, and neither directed the jury to disregard the absence of further investigative steps such as fingerprinting nor undermined defendant's summation arguments concerning the alleged insufficiency of the People's proof ( see, People v. Kramer, 240 A.D.2d 204, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 875; People v. Kinard, 215 A.D.2d 591, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 797). Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining defendant's request to further instruct the jury that they could consider the lack of a particular investigative step.
Defendant's remaining contentions concerning the jury charge are unpreserved for review, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, conveyed the proper standards on the subject matters in question.
Concur — Lerner, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.