THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LEON NELSON, 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.
A trial court must conduct an in camera hearing before ordering the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity. Failure to do so, followed by non-disclosure, requires adherence to specific procedural rules.
[1] A trial court must conduct an in camera hearing before ordering the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity.
[2] Disclosure of a confidential informant is not required unless the informant will be produced at trial or a failure to disclose infringes the constitutional rights of the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court dismissed an information. The specific facts leading to this dismissal, particularly concerning the disclosure of a confidential infor…
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 In Camera Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A trial court should not order disclosure of the name of a confidential infor mant without conducting an in camera hearing. See: Fla.R.Cr.P. 8.220(e)(2)1 3.220(i) 2.
If a trial court orders disclosure and same is not made, the trial court should then be governed by the provisions of Fla.R.Cr.P. 3.220(j)3.
Therefore, the order under review dismissing an information be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. “Matters Not Subject to Disclosure.
(2) Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused.”
. “In Camera Proceedings. Upon request of any person, the court may permit any showing of cause for denial or regulation of disclosures, or any portion of such showing to be made in camera. A record shall be made of such proceedings. If the court enters an order granting the relief following a showing in camera, the entire record of such showing shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.”
.“Sanctions.
(1) If, at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or with an order issued pursuant to an applicable discovery rule, the court may order such party to comply with the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed or produced, grant a continuance, grant a mistrial, prohibit the party from calling a witness not disclosed or introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.
(2) Willful violation by counsel of an applicable discovery rule, or an order issued pursuant thereto, may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions by the court.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Maximo Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…idential informant, see Standards for Criminal Justice Standard 11-2.6 (2d ed. 1980), and related eommen-tary, we have previously held that such a hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal, see State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We continue to adhere to that view. For the foregoing reasons the order of dismissal is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. . The balancing test approved in…
-
State v. Villar, 554 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…e informer’s potential value as a witness, an in camera hearing on the nature of the informer’s probable testimony is required, State v. Martin, 522 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), once a specific color-able defense is alleged. State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d at 1026; State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). After that hearing, the trial court may assess the ultimate sanction of dismissal upon it. Stat…
-
State v. Martin, 522 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. Tenorio-Angel, 756 F. 2d 1505, 1510 (11th Cir.1985). We have previously held that an in-camera hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal. State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In the instant case, although the confidential informant’s name is already known to at least one of the defendants, the need for a hearing in camera is not negated. Martin’s brutal assault on the confidential informant had the se…