Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, the People's evidence clearly established the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Credibility is properly determined by the trier of the facts (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). The jurors reasonably chose to credit the corroborated testimony of a trained undercover narcotics officer who bought heroin from the defendants, radioed a detailed description of them, and identified them upon their arrest and later at the stationhouse.
The prosecutor's summation was a fair response to the defense argument that the police officers had framed the defendants and had lied about the circumstances of their arrests (see, People v Davis, 61 N.Y.2d 202, 207; People v York, 133 A.D.2d 130, 133, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 939).
Defendant Rodriguez' contention that the trial court improperly failed to marshal the evidence is both unpreserved and without merit, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would note that there is no requirement that the trial court marshal evidence and explain either the defendant's or People's theories and proof (CPL 300.10; People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 667). The decision of the trial court not to marshal the evidence was proper and, since neither the People's nor defendants' evidence was marshaled, the charge was fair and balanced.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.