Opinion
July 14, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant was not entitled to pretrial production of a confidential informant. Under People v Jenkins ( 41 N.Y.2d 307), the People must produce a confidential informant at trial for the purposes of confrontation and cross-examination once the defendant establishes that the informant's testimony is relevant to the issue of his guilt or innocence. Additionally, the People are not guarantors of the availability of informants no longer in their employ or control (see, People v Jenkins, supra, p 310; People v Maneiro, 49 N.Y.2d 769; United States v Hart, 546 F.2d 798, cert denied sub nom. Robles v United States, 429 U.S. 1120). The papers submitted on the defendant's pretrial motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant failed to meet the burden of showing the material and relevant nature of the informant's testimony necessary to require disclosure of his identity (see, e.g., People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012; People v Pena, 37 N.Y.2d 642). When the defendant later met his burden at the trial and it became evident that the informant was unavailable to testify, the People met their burden of demonstrating that they were not responsible for the informant's absence and that they had made reasonable and good-faith efforts to produce him at the trial (see, e.g., People v Jenkins, supra). Particularly where the defendant knew the identity of the informant, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he could not receive a fair trial without the testimony of this witness (see, e.g., People v Maneiro, supra). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.