HARRIET RIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ms. Riggins was charged with selling heroin after an undercover operation involving a confidential informant. The court held that her motion to compel disclosure of the informant's identity was sufficient to warrant an in-camera hearing to determine whether the informant was a material witness essential to her defense.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to compel. Where the defendant's allegations are sufficient to show the informant's identity is relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination of the case, the defendant is entitled to an in-camera hearing to determine whether the informant must be identified.
[1] A defendant seeking to compel the identity of a confidential informant must allege facts demonstrating that the informant's testimony is relevant and helpful to the defen…
[2] A significant time lapse between a drug transaction and arrest can heighten the importance of potential misidentification defenses.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The allegations of defendant's motion to compel were sufficient to show that the identity of the informant was relevant and helpful to her defense, or essential to a fair determination of the cause.”
Establishes the legal standard for when confidential informant identity must be disclosed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 8, 1976, a confidential informant introduced undercover Officer McNeil to Riggins and Williams. Officer McNeil negotiated a heroin sale with W…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Identity Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On June 8, 1976, the appellant, Ms. Rig-gins, was allegedly involved in a drug sale. A confidential informant introduced Officer McNeil, an undercover agent, to Ms. Rig-gins and a friend, Mr. Williams. Officer McNeil and Mr. Williams negotiated the sale and the confidential informant drove Officer McNeil, Mr. Williams and Ms. Rig-gins to the Roosevelt Grill to pick up heroin. At Mr. Williams’ instructions, Officer McNeil gave the money to Ms. Riggins who went into the Grill and returned with three tin foil packets which she gave to Officer McNeil. The confidential informant did not handle the money or the drugs and did not participate in the negotiations. However, he was present from start to finish. No arrest was made at the time of the sale.
An information was filed in November of 1976 and an amended information filed in January of 1977, charging Ms. Riggins with sale or delivery of heroin. She was not arrested until November of 1977.
A motion to compel the identity of the confidential informant was filed alleging that disclosure was necessary to establish a defense because the confidential informant was a material witness. It alleged that the informant’s testimony bore directly on the transaction, the circumstances giving rise to the transaction and its consummation, as well as the actual identification of the individual involved. It further raised the motive and interest of the confidential informant.
The allegations of defendant’s motion to compel were sufficient to show that the identity of the informant was relevant and helpful to her defense, or essential to a fair determination of the cause. State v. Grimes, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1977). In defendant’s motion, the attorney stated the intended defense of misidentification and showed that the confidential informant’s testimony could be highly significant on that issue. McCants v. State, 363 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); State v. Anderson, 329 So. 2d 424 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). The question of misidentification in this ease is especially significant due to the long time lapse between the transaction and the arrest. Defendant should be given an opportunity to file a sworn motion or affidavit alleging the necessary facts which will invoke the necessity of an in-camera hearing. Beasley v. State, 354 So. 2d 934 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ce. Munford v. State, see also State v. Mesa. When it appears [*869] that a defendant may have a valid basis to invoke an in camera hearing, he is entitled to the opportunity to file a sworn affidavit alleging sufficient facts. See Riggins v. State, 374 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The materiality of the informant’s testimony to the defense can be established in an in camera hearing, thereby sustaining the higher burden to show the need for disclosure. State v. Williams. ” State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024…
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…evidence. Munford v. State, see also State v. Mesa. When it appears that a defendant may have a valid basis to invoke an in camera hearing, he is entitled to the opportunity to file a sworn affidavit alleging sufficient facts. See Riggins v. State, 374 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The materiality of the informant’s testimony to the defense can be established in an in camera hearing, thereby sustaining the higher burden to show the need for disclosure. State v. Williams.…
-
Mingle v. State, 429 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused. . The necessity for a sworn motion to invoke the necessity for same was discussed in Beasley v. State, 354 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and Riggins v. State, 374 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In the instant case, the motions were supported by affidavits. “In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probabl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1977)
- Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Beasley v. State, 354 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- McCANTS v. State, 363 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- State v. Anderson, 329 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)