Opinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly diluted and shifted the burden of proof. Initially, it should be noted that the issue was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the specific charge in question (CPL 470.05). In any event, the court properly instructed the jury, inter alia, that the defendant was presumed innocent and must be given the benefit of the presumption, and that the People had the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In viewing the charge as a whole, the court's instructions were proper (see, People v. Migliaccio, 77 A.D.2d 575).
The sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.