People v. Martinez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Martinez

426 N.E.2d 488, 54 N.Y.2d 723, 442 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2651

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 7, 1981·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed. It cannot be ■ said the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance in the in camera hearing held to determine whether disclosure of the confidential informant was required. Where the defendant fails to establish the need for production, the trial court’s decision to end the in camera hearing on that issue does not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to confrontation (see People v *725 Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, cert den 419 US 1012). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order affirmed. It cannot be ■ said the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance in the in camera hearing held to determine whether disclosure of the confidential informant was required. Where the defendant fails to establish the need for production, the trial court’s decision to end the in camera hearing on that issue does not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to confrontation (see People v *725 Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, cert den 419 US 1012). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

People v. Martinez, 426 N.E.2d 488, 54 N.Y.2d 723, 442 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2651 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

426 N.E.2d 488 (People v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related