People v. Colon

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Colon

352 N.E.2d 138, 39 N.Y.2d 872, 386 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2813

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 352 N.E.2d 138 (People v. Colon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Colon, 352 N.E.2d 138, 39 N.Y.2d 872, 386 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2813 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order affirmed. The informant was not a material witness to the actual drug transactions. The alibi defense was insufficient to cast a significant doubt on the police testimony of numerous direct meetings, conversations, and transactions with defendant. Moreover, the ex parte in camera testimony, received under a one-time practice no longer preferred, instead of offering a likelihood of obtaining exculpatory testimony from the informant bolstered the prosecution’s case. (See, generally, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 168-169, cert den 419 US 1012; see, also, People v Pena, 37 NY2d 642.) Hence, there was no error in the exercise of discretion by the trial court in protecting the identity of the informant, and thus his continued usefulness, and perhaps his safety.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. Order affirmed. The informant was not a material witness to the actual drug transactions. The alibi defense was insufficient to cast a significant doubt on the police testimony of numerous direct meetings, conversations, and transactions with defendant. Moreover, the ex parte in camera testimony, received under a one-time practice no longer preferred, instead of offering a likelihood of obtaining exculpatory testimony from the informant bolstered the prosecution’s case. (See, generally, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 168-169, cert den 419 US 1012; see, also, People v Pena, 37 NY2d 642.) Hence, there was no error in the exercise of discretion by the trial court in protecting the identity of the informant, and thus his continued usefulness, and perhaps his safety.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 N.E.2d 138, 39 N.Y.2d 872, 386 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colon-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack