Opinion
January 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.
The circumstantial evidence charge given by the trial court failed to include language which clearly conveyed the concept that the evidence must exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022). Although we find that the proof of the defendant's guilt was legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, it was not overwhelming. Consequently, the court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the reasoning process to be followed cannot be considered harmless error, and reversal and a new trial are required (see, People v. Ford, supra; People v Tsotselashvili, 135 A.D.2d 759; People v. Perrotta, 121 A.D.2d 659).
The court submitted a verdict sheet to the jury which described some of the elements of the crimes charged. Although the defendant failed to object to its submission, since there must be a retrial and proof of the defendant's guilt was not overwhelming, we reach this issue in the interest of justice and find that the verdict sheet was improper (see, People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v. McKenzie, 148 A.D.2d 472; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.