225 A.D.2d 805, 89 N.Y.2d 852 (1996)
A trial court’s instruction to the jury that a trial is “a search for the truth” does not necessarily undermine the proper burden of proof when viewed in the context of the jury instructions in their entirety.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of felony murder, robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon. He appealed, arguing that the trial court’s jury instructions were flawed, specifically the instruction that the trial was a “search for the truth” and the refusal to instruct that mere presence at the scene is insufficient for criminal liability. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the “search for the truth” instruction, when viewed in context, did not undermine the burden of proof. The court also found no error in refusing the mere presence instruction, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported it, and the court properly instructed on accessorial liability.
Facts
The defendant, along with unapprehended individuals, robbed two men in a parked car. During the robbery, one of the men in the car was fatally shot. The defendant was subsequently indicted and convicted of felony murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. At trial, the defendant objected to the court’s jury instructions.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court’s jury instructions warranted reversal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court’s instruction to the jury that the trial was “a search for the truth” undermined the People’s burden of proof.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
Holding
1. No, because reviewing the statement in the context of the jury instructions in their entirety, there is no basis for concluding that the proper burden of proof upon the People was undermined or less than adequately conveyed.
2. No, because under the circumstances of this case, no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a charge, and the court properly instructed on accessorial liability.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the “search for the truth” instruction, the Court of Appeals relied on People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 819, stating that when viewed in the context of the entire jury instruction, the instruction did not undermine the burden of proof. The Court also noted that the defendant’s claim relating to the cumulative effect of the “search for the truth” instruction was unpreserved for review because no objection was raised before the trial court on that specific ground.
Regarding the refusal to instruct on mere presence, the Court reasoned that no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a charge. The court emphasized that the defendant’s concern about potential guilt based solely on presence was mitigated by the court’s recitation of Penal Law § 20.00, which included the requirement of acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime charged. The court stated that “acting in concert liability requires acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime charged.”