Opinion
May 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.).
Contrary to defendant's argument, the instruction that a reasonable doubt "is a doubt which if you were called upon, you could give a reasonable or a rational explanation" did not improperly impose upon the jurors a duty to articulate the reasons for their doubt, but merely "defined the required degree of clarity and coherence of thought, focusing on the jurors' intellectual effort" (People v. Brin, 190 A.D.2d 512, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 751, citing People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 251-252; see also, People v. Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 728; People v. Jackson, 155 A.D.2d 329, affd 76 N.Y.2d 908).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.