People v. Vasquez
| Decision Date | 07 July 1975 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roberto VASQUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein and William J. Gallagher, New York City (Daniel J. Brooks, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Alan Rubinstein, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before RABIN, Acting P.J., and HOPKINS, LATHAM, MUNDER and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 6, 1973, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered.
At a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence, when it became evident that defendant's arrest had been precipitated by information supplied by a police informer, defendant requested that the informer's identity be revealed, but the request was denied. The suppression hearing was crucial because it presented the question of whether defendant's arrest was based upon probable cause, and, of course, it is defendant's claim that he was denied a fair hearing on that question. Under all the facts of this case and admittedly some of them border on the bizarre, we conclude that there is merit to defendant's claim and that fundamental justice requires a new trial.
With the denial of the request for the informer's identity, the only proof of the informer's existence and his information was the testimony by the police officer, Detective John McLean, who allegedly had been in contact with him. The People concede that, aside from McLean's testimony and what they refer to as a circumstantial guarantee, there is no indication in the record that the informant existed. They also concede that there was no prior history of reliability with respect to the informer in that there was No testimony that previous information supplied by him had led to arrests and convictions. The following quotation from People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 181, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 585, 313 N.E.2d 49, 52, is appropriate:
'In any event the court regards it as fair and wise, in a case such as this, where is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause apart from the testimony of the arresting officer as to communications received from an informer, when the issue of identity of the informer is raised at the suppression hearing, for the suppression Judge then to conduct an In camera inquiry.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gissendanner
...case; defense counsel had information that undercover officer who testified had improperly handled previous "buys"); People v. Vasquez, 49 A.D.2d 590, 370 N.Y.S.2d 144 (narcotics case; testifying police officer had been convicted for "shaking down" narcotics dealers); Pitchess v. Superior C......
-
People v. Garrett
...543, 549, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924;People v. Puglisi, 44 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 405 N.Y.S.2d 680, 376 N.E.2d 1325;People v. Vasquez, 49 A.D.2d 590, 370 N.Y.S.2d 144). “In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided t......
-
State v. Kaszubinski
...defendants demonstrated each officer had previously been accused of using excessive force in making arrests); People v. Vasquez, 49 App.Div.2d 590, 370 N.Y.S.2d 144 (App.Div.1975) (police witness in narcotics case had been convicted for "shaking down" narcotics dealers); State v. Fleischman......
-
People v. Oglesby
...from the disciplinary records of the undercover officer concerning previous mishandling of undercover "buys"); People v. Vasquez, 49 A.D.2d 590, 591, 370 N.Y.S.2d 144 (trial court in a narcotics case should have reviewed in camera the personnel records of a police officer who was subsequent......