People v. Medina

• Decision Date: 02 June 1981
• Citation: 441 N.Y.S.2d 442,53 N.Y.2d 951,424 N.E.2d 276
• Parties: , 424 N.E.2d 276 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert MEDINA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 442

441 N.Y.S.2d 442

53 N.Y.2d 951, 424 N.E.2d 276

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Robert MEDINA, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 2, 1981.

Miriam J. Hibel and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. (Deborah Carlin Stevens, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of Appellate Division, 74 A.D.2d 1006, 425 N.Y.S.2d 438, should be affirmed.

At one point during the trial, defense counsel asked the People's witness to reveal the name of the informant who had arranged the cocaine sale and later gave the police the information which led to defendant's arrest (seePeople v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 356 N.Y.S.2d 571, 313 N.E.2d 41, cert. den.419 U.S. 1012, 95 S.Ct. 332, 42 L.Ed.2d 286).The informant's identity was not disclosed, however, because the Trial Judge sustained the District Attorney's prompt objection to the question.Since the District Attorney was obviously unwilling to permit the witness to disclose the informant's identity, it was incumbent upon defendant to seek a judicial ruling on the question if he believed that disclosure would be helpful to his case.Having failed to request such a ruling at any point during the course of the trial, defendant is now precluded from raising the issue in this court as a potential ground for reversal (CPL 470.35, subd. 1;470.05, subd. 2).

Defendant's further contention that the conviction should be reversed because of certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks is similarly without...