People v. Cubino, 671 N.E.2d 1265 (NY 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cubino, 671 N.E.2d 1265 (NY 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 · …the preferred phrasing to convey the concept and degree of reasonable doubt is illustrated in the pattern criminal jury instructions ✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · …as the court has emphasized, the model charges contain the 'preferred phrasing' of legal instructions at p. 1000 ⚠ not in text
76 citation events (50 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. T.P. (ny, 2025-06-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. T.P.
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
Courts are not required to use the model instructions, but "[a]s the Court has emphasized, the model charges contain the 'preferred phrasing' of legal instructions" ( People v J.L. , 36 NY3d 112, 122 [2020], quoting People v Cubino , 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Blue (2×)
NY · 2024 · confidence medium
As we have "emphasized, the model charges contain the 'preferred phrasing' of legal instructions" ( People v J.L. , 36 NY3d 112, 122 [2020], quoting People v Cubino , 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Christie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
People v Umali , 10 NY3d 417 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009}; People v Cubino , 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; People v Fields , 87 NY2d 821 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Figueroa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Although the Criminal Jury Instructions contain the "preferred phrasing," the court's charge, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard ( People v Cubino , 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; see also People v Radcliffe , 232 NY 249, 254 [1921]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although the Criminal Jury Instructions contain the “preferred phrasing,” the court’s charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the appropriate principles and did not dilute the standard of proof required (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are mindful that an exact recitation of the Criminal Jury Instructions, which “contain the ‘preferred phrasing’ ” for instructing a jury would likely have avoided the instant controversy, but inasmuch as the court’s identification instruction closely followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, no reversal is warranted (People v Bailey, 305 AD2d 304, 305 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 617 [2003], quoting People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; see CJI2d[NY] Identification § 4:48).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gibson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are mindful that an exact recitation of the Criminal Jury Instructions, which “contain the ‘preferred phrasing’ ” for instructing a jury would likely have avoided the instant controversy, but inasmuch as the court’s identification instruction closely followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, no reversal is warranted (People v Bailey, 305 AD2d 304, 305 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 617 [2003], quoting People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; see CJI2d[NY] Identification § 4:48).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PeoplevGibson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We are mindful that an exact 1 Although defendant challenged certain jury instructions during the trial, he made no objection to County Court's alibi charge and, therefore, failed to preserve the claim for our review (see People v Melendez, 16 NY3d 869, 870 [2011]; People v Wilson, 108 AD3d 1011, 1013 [2013]). -5- 105660 recitation of the Criminal Jury Instructions, which "contain the 'preferred phrasing'" for instructing a jury would likely have avoided the instant controversy, but inasmuch as the court's identification instruction closely followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, no reversal …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Matter of Conservative Party of State of N.Y. v New York State Bd. of Elections, 88 NY2d 998, 998 [1996]; Parillo v Salvador, 276 AD2d 1000 , 1001 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 702 [2001]; Matter of Quirk v Evans, 116 Misc 2d 554, 556 [1982]). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cooper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
We note that the court’s charge mirrored the charge recommended in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see CJI2d[NY] Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt), which is the “ ‘preferred phrasing to convey the concept’ ” (People v Perkins, 27 AD3d 890, 893 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 897 [2006], quoting People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; see People v Fairley, 63 AD3d 1288, 1290 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]; People v Fogarty, 12 AD3d 854, 857 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 763 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Greene
2d Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
The Court of Appeals has advised that “[t]he preferred phrasing to convey the concept and degree of reasonable doubt is illustrated in the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions.” People v. Cubino, 88 N.Y.2d 998, 1000 , 648 N.Y.S.2d 868, 869 (1996) (mem.). 27 1 charge likely led the jury to think a guilty verdict could be returned on an insufficient standard of 2 proof.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ricardo M.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Richmond Cty. · 2006 · confidence medium
People v. Cubino , 88 NY2d 998, 100 (1996); People v. Radcliffe , 232 NY 249 (1921); see also People v. Antommarchi , 80 NY2d 247, 252 (1992) (reasonable doubt is an "honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists beyond the nature and quality of the evidence").
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Acosta
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The court’s reasonable doubt charge conveyed the proper . standards (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Perkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The court’s charge was virtually identical to the reasonable doubt charge in the Criminal Jury Instructions, which is the “preferred phrasing to convey the concept” (People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]; see CJI2d[NY] Presumption of Innocence; Burden of Proof; Reasonable Doubt).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Garcia
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although some of the language employed by the court was disapproved by this Court in People v Johnson ( 11 AD3d 224 [2004]), we find that in this case there was no prejudice to defendant because the court made it abundantly clear to the jury, particularly in the supplemental charge, that the People had the burden of proving every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bailey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Although the Criminal Jury Instructions contain the “preferred phrasing” for the court’s charge on burden of proof and reasonable doubt, the court’s charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the appropriate principles (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Duncan
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
In short, the new charge, as read to the jury in the present action, viewed as a whole, clearly relayed the proper standard of proof to the jury (see, e.g., People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1098 ; People v Cantwell, 234 AD2d 606 ; People v Rodriguez, 225 AD2d 564 , lv denied 88 NY2d 969 ). 6 Moreover, the charge has been streamlined and phrased in such a manner so as to succinctly convey the meaning of reasonable doubt to the jury, and this court did not err by following its language as approved by the CJI Committee (see, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998, 1000 [“The preferred p…
cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cobb
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
The charge, when viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper legal standards (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 ; see also, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ronald Cubino, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 10, 1996.
671 N.E.2d 1265
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, John Gemmill, New York City, and Daniel L. Greenberg for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Maura E. Daly of counsel), for respondent., Joseph Calluori, New York City, for New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae., Erica Horwitz, New York City, for New York Criminal Bar Association, amicus curiae., T. Barry Kingham, New York City, for New York Council of Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 54 opinions  |  Published

[*1000] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of criminal trespass in the second degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. On the appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended that part of the trial court’s instruction to the jury on reasonable doubt diluted the standard of proof by referencing that standard to decisions jurors might be called upon to make in their personal lives. The Appellate Division affirmed in a plurality decision with two dissenting votes. We now affirm on the appeal to our Court, here by leave of the Presiding Justice at the Appellate Division.

The preferred phrasing to convey the concept and degree of reasonable doubt is illustrated in the Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions: "The doubt, to be a reasonable doubt, should be one which a reasonable person acting in a matter of this, importance would be likely to entertain because of the evidence or because of the lack or insufficiency of the evidence in the case” (CJI 6:20, at 249). The comparative characterization used in the instruction by the trial court in this case was less definitive and potentially more troublesome than the preferred language and such variations should be avoided. As ultimately noted by the plurality memorandum, however, and as emphasized by Justice Mazzarelli in her concurring opinion at the Appellate Division, the objected-to portion of the instruction did not dilute the standard of required proof here nor did it deprive this defendant of a fair trial in the context of the entire balanced and correct set of instructions given.

Appellant’s other arguments have been considered, and we conclude that, to the extent they are even preserved for our review, they are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.