CECIL CRIBBS, PETITIONER,

v.

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Tumulty v. State, 489 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
  …s; that the personal safety exception to the rule was to be narrowly applied, relying on State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1977). We find that the cases relied on by Tumulty, Pena v. State, 432 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) and Garcia v. State, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), are inapposite because of our peculiar facts, i.e., appellant’s familiarity with all of the prior facts and the known identity of the witnesses. In any event, the court considered the arguments of counsel and concluded that Tu-mu…
• Coby v. State, 397 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …subtantial risk of physical harm to the confidential informant. Ultimately, disclosure or non-disclosure of a confidential in [*976] formant rest upon balancing of the respective interest according to the circumstances of each case. Garcia v. State, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). However, where a proper showing occurs, the privilege against non-disclosure will totally give way in favor of disclosure. State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1977). On remand to the trial court, the defendant’s substantial in…
• State v. Martin, 522 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
  …the identity of an informer has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no longer applicable.” 353 U.S. at 60, 77 S.Ct. at 627, 1 L.Ed.2d at 644. However, as this court observed in Garcia v. State, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), if the safety of the informant is called into question, the court must weigh the interests of the state and the safety of the individual against the defendant’s right to develop a defense. Id. at 443. Moreover, a defendant’s know…

Authorities Cited

• Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
• Houston v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n & Clarence Desye, 377 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)