People v. Fulton
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Even if we were to assume, as defendant contends, that his pro se demand for production or disclosure of the informant encompassed a request for an in camera inquiry-in accordance with the procedures outlined in People v Darden (34 NY2d 177, 181), the People’s inability to produce her at the hearing the Appellate Division directed did not mandate suppression of the items seized at the time of defendant’s arrest. For the record supports both the finding that the informant existed and that the People made…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. DardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. LeyvaNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- People v. CarpenitoNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. LowenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- People v. AdrionNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. CarpenitoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.