From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 1986
120 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 22, 1986

Appeal from the County Court of Columbia County (Zittell, J.).


On October 18, 1983, a police informant allegedly purchased a quantity of heroin and cocaine from defendant. At the time of the sale, the informant had a transmitter attached to his body. Thus, officers from the City of Hudson Police Department were able to overhear and record the illegal transaction. As the informant and defendant exited the building where the transaction occurred, one of the police officers was able to observe defendant. The informant left the area before defendant's trial. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. This appeal ensued.

We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's request to produce the informant. When an informant leaves an area of his own volition, the initial burden is upon the defendant to demonstrate that the informant's testimony would have aided in defense of the case (People v Jenkins, 41 N.Y.2d 307). Here, the informant left on his own initiative. Defendant's request to produce the informant, which did not come until the close of the People's case, does not indicate any way in which the informant's testimony would have aided in her defense. Defendant's conversation was recorded as she carried out the illegal drug transaction and she was independently identified by a police officer. Accordingly, it was within the trial court's discretion to deny the request to produce the informant.

We also reject defendant's contention that the People's cross-examination of defendant's alibi witnesses constituted reversible error. The prosecutor questioned these witnesses, who were all related to or friendly with defendant, regarding their failure until the eve of trial to discuss with either defendant or her counsel their purported knowledge of events tending to exculpate defendant. Upon review of the record, we conclude that an adequate foundation was established by the People for this line of questioning (cf. People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311).

Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J.P., Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 22, 1986
120 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Watson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JULIA WATSON, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 22, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 866 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Watson

Furthermore, defendant was unable to meet his high burden of establishing that the proposed testimony of the…

People v. Watson

The record also includes some indication that County Court issued a judicial subpoena directing the CI's…