Summary
In Huggins, the Court held that the trial court's failure to order in camera examination of a confidential informant was not an abuse of discretion, noting that Darden provides "guidelines to assist the courts in exercising their discretionary powers * * * to hold in camera inquiries."
Summary of this case from People v. EdwardsOpinion
Argued March 19, 1975
Decided May 1, 1975
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JAMES O. MOORE, J.
Rosalie Stoll and Nathaniel A. Barrell for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (Judith Blake Manzella of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. The disclosure of an informer's identity at suppression hearings is a matter left to the sound but reviewable discretion of the hearing court. In People v Darden ( 34 N.Y.2d 177) recognizing the delicacy of the task, we furnished certain guidelines to assist the courts in exercising their discretionary powers in conducting suppression hearings to hold in camera inquiries as to the existence of an informer and with respect to the communications made by the informer to the police. In the present case, though requested, such an inquiry was denied. In the circumstances disclosed in this record however, we cannot say that such denial was an abuse of discretion, especially since at the time the hearing court did not have the benefit of the guidelines subsequently announced in our opinion in People v Darden (supra).
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.