People v. Pena, 37 N.Y.2d 642 (1975)
When a defendant presents a credible alibi defense in a drug sale case, and the testimony of confidential informants would likely have a direct bearing on that alibi, the defendant is entitled to disclosure of the informants’ identities.
Summary
Pena was convicted of a drug sale based on the testimony of undercover agents. Pena presented an alibi defense, claiming he was not at the location of the sale. He sought to compel the prosecution to disclose the identities of confidential informants who were present during the alleged drug sale, arguing their testimony could support his alibi and challenge the agents’ identification. The court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Pena’s alibi defense and the potential relevance of the informants’ testimony entitled him to disclosure of their identities, especially given the state’s attenuated interest in continued secrecy.
Facts
Three undercover agents testified that they, along with two confidential informants, were present at the Hampton Manor Restaurant on May 24, 1973, where Pena allegedly made a drug sale.
The agents identified Pena as the seller.
Pena presented an alibi defense, offering credible witnesses to testify that he was not present at the restaurant on the evening in question.
Pena sought disclosure of the identities of the confidential informants to support his claim of misidentification.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Pena’s motion to compel disclosure of the informants’ identities.
Pena was convicted of the drug sale.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
Pena appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to compel the prosecution to disclose the identities of confidential informants when the defendant presented a credible alibi defense and the informants’ testimony could have a direct bearing on the alibi and the question of guilt or innocence.
Holding
Yes, because the defendant presented a credible alibi defense, and the testimony of the informants would likely have had a direct bearing on the alibi defense, and therefore on the question of guilt or innocence. Furthermore, the state’s interest in preventing disclosure was attenuated.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its previous decision in People v. Goggins, stating that a defendant might become entitled to disclosure of an informant’s identity “not by showing weaknesses in the prosecution case but by the development of his defense.”
The court emphasized that Pena, like the defendant in Goggins, presented a credible alibi defense corroborated by witnesses.
Because the informants were present during the alleged drug sale, their testimony could directly impact the alibi defense and the identification of Pena as the seller.
The court noted the prosecution conceded that the informants had not been active for two and a half years and that they did not even know their whereabouts. Thus, the state’s interest in preventing disclosure was diminished.
“Even if it be assumed, as the People contend, that the defendant’s need for disclosure was below the threshold established under Goggins, disclosure, in this case, should nevertheless have been mandated.”
The Court stated, “the defendant, having made the initial showing as to the importance of disclosure…the People should have come forward with some showing as to reasons, if any, why the names of the informants should not have been revealed.”
The court cited Brady v. Maryland, stating if “the interest of the State in preventing disclosure was attenuated and insufficient in view of the potential impact of the informants’ testimony then surely the State should have been obliged to disclose the information sought”.