Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because the court erroneously defined reasonable doubt in its charge to the jury. We find this contention to be without merit as the court's charge, when read as a whole, properly conveyed to the jury the difference between a reasonable doubt and one based on a "whim, sympathy or some other vague reason" (see, People v Jones,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
