THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXIMO JIMENEZ, LUIS PINTADO AND PEDRO AUGUSTIN ALVAREZ, APPELLEES
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.
The State of Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of cocaine trafficking charges after the court ordered disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and the State refused to comply. The appellate court reversed, holding that an in-camera hearing is a necessary prerequisite to dismissal in confidential informant cases, and the trial court must conduct a proper balancing test before imposing such sanctions.
An in-camera hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal in cases involving disclosure of a confidential informant. The trial court must conduct a proper balancing test weighing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare a defense before dismissing charges.
[1] A trial court may not dismiss an information based on the State's refusal to disclose a confidential informant's identity without first conducting an in-camera hearing to…
[2] Disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is required when the defense meets its threshold burden, necessitating a balancing test by the court.
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 intelligence“Although an in-camera proceeding may not be necessary in every case involving disclosure of a confidential informant, see Standards for Criminal Justice Standard 11-2.6 (2d ed. 1980), and related commentary, we have previously held that such a hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal.”
Establishes that in-camera hearing is mandatory before dismissal can be ordered in confidential informant disclosure cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants were charged with trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to sell cocaine, and possession and sale or delivery of a controlled substance. Th…
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 Conspiracy To Sell Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals a trial court order dismissing an information which charged the defendants with trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to sell cocaine and possession and sale or delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Florida Statutes.
The defendants jointly moved for the disclosure of a confidential informant. After a hearing on that motion, the trial court ordered disclosure. Based upon a representation from the state that the informant’s identity would not be disclosed, the trial court dismissed the information. We reverse on the authority of State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). As in Williams, we cannot tell from this record the basis for the state’s refusal to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. Nor can we determine from the record the necessity of disclosure to the defense, notwithstanding that the defendants have met their threshold burden requiring disclosure. See Smith v. State, 318 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1976). The state did ask for an in-camera hearing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(i), so that the necessary balancing required by Williams could be conducted by the trial court.1
Although an in-camera proceeding may not be necessary in every case involving disclosure of a confidential 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 Williams requires the court to weigh “the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…al court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant’s testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d. 416 (Fla. 3d DCA [*871] 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception. In any event, no dismissal order can…
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…g the ultimate sanction of dismissal for refusing to disclose an informant’s identity, the state is entitled to an in camera hearing to consider the necessity for the informant’s testimony and the state’s interest in nondisclosure. State v. Jimenez, 428 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). This presupposes that the defendant has met his burden to invoke an in camera hearing because the burden of proof on a defendant seeking an in camera hearing is lighter than the burden to establish the necessity to disclose the i…
-
State v. Villar, 554 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d meaningless by automatic defense allegations of the 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 ass…1 / 2
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
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- Campbell v. Pyms-Suchman Real Est. Co., 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Smith v. State, 318 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Betsey v. Litt, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Nelson, 405 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)