Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL HUGGINS, Appellant.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. HUGGINS
(May 1, 1975)