On September 22, 1986, defendant was arrested within minutes of selling narcotics to an undercover police officer. Defendant now claims on appeal that he was denied a fair trial by the court's reference to "reasonable person" in its reasonable doubt charge and the court's query "who speaks the truth" at the end of its charge. However, since these objections were not raised at trial, they are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Were we to review these issues in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, since the court's charge as a whole adequately conveyed the concepts of reasonable doubt and the prosecutor's burden of proof (People v Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 819; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 303).
Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.