Commonwealth v. Belenky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding trial court did not err in denying motion to compel identity of informant involved only in controlled purchases that led to issuance of search warrant
• stating “[o]nly after this threshold showing that the information is material and the request is reasonable is the trial court called upon to determine whether the information is to be revealed
• defendant “must demonstrate a reasonable possibility the informant could give evidence that would exonerate him”
• incorrect address did not invalidate warrant where description in the affidavit matched appellant’s apartment in every other respect and did not affect ability to identify the premises to be searched
• “Appellant was charged with the offenses resulting from the search, not the sale, and the validity of that search has nothing to do with the identity of the man who sold drugs”
• Belenky’s reliance on opinions in single transaction sales cases was misplaced with respect to his request for disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity where he was charged with offenses resulting from a search, rather than from sales

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).