Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's Allen charge with respect to reasonable doubt was not error since it properly defined reasonable doubt as a doubt, based on the evidence or lack of evidence, for which a juror could express a reason if called upon to do so ( see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 252). Moreover, the charge as a whole was balanced, encouraging rather than coercive, and at no point did the court urge that a dissenting juror abandon his or her conviction to join in the opinion of others, attempt to shame the jurors into reaching a verdict, or endeavor to compel the jurors to agree upon a particular result ( see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725; People v. Sims, 226 A.D.2d 564; People v. Kinard, 215 A.D.2d 591). Any alleged coercion in the charge did not result in a precipitous jury verdict since the record shows that the jury continued to deliberate for over three hours following the Allen charge before returning its verdict ( People v. Sims, supra; People v. Perdomo, 204 A.D.2d 358).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Miller, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.