People v. Alvarez, 48 N.Y.2d 768 (1979)

r
r

When an informant is unavailable at trial, the defendant is not entitled to an automatic dismissal of charges if the People acted with reasonable diligence and good faith in attempting to locate the informant, and the defendant fails to demonstrate that the informant’s testimony would likely have been exculpatory.

r
r

Summary

r

Alvarez was convicted of a drug offense. Prior to trial, he requested the name and address of a confidential informant. At trial, Alvarez testified that he and the informant had prepared fake drugs to dupe an undercover officer. The informant was unavailable to testify. The trial court determined the People did not contribute to the informant’s disappearance and acted diligently in trying to locate him. The Court of Appeals held that Alvarez was not entitled to automatic dismissal of the charges because the People acted diligently and he failed to demonstrate the informant’s testimony would likely be exculpatory. The Court emphasized that the People should not be penalized when an informant disappears on their own accord after government control is relinquished.

r
r

Facts

r

r
Defendant Alvarez was charged with a drug offense stemming from a transaction involving an undercover officer and a confidential informant.r
Prior to trial, Alvarez sought the disclosure of the informant’s identity and address, which was initially refused.r
At trial, Alvarez testified that he and the informant had conspired to create “dummies,” packets of harmless powder disguised as heroin, intending to deceive the undercover officer.r
Alvarez claimed he and the informant delivered these “dummies” to the officer, but offered no explanation as to how they were transformed into real heroin before the delivery.r
The informant was unavailable to testify at trial.r

r
r

Procedural History

r

r
The trial court found that the People did not contribute to the informant’s disappearance and acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to locate him.r
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s findings.r
The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.r

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r
Whether the defendant was entitled to an automatic dismissal of the charges against him because of the unavailability of the informant at trial.r
Whether the prosecutor’s refusal to disclose the informant’s identity prior to trial warrants reversal.r

r
r

Holding

r

r
No, because the People had not contributed to the disappearance of the informant, acted diligently in attempting to locate him, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that the informant’s testimony would likely have been exculpatory.r
No, because the defendant failed to challenge the adequacy of the People’s bill of particulars at the appropriate time and failed to demonstrate a need for the information during pretrial proceedings.r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

r
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings, emphasizing the trial court’s factual determination that the People had not contributed to the informant’s disappearance and had acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to locate him. These findings were supported by sufficient evidence and were binding on appeal.r
The Court relied on People v. Jenkins, which states that