STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD MURRAY, TIMOTHY DAME, AND JONATHON VERNON, 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.
Florida's petition for certiorari challenging disclosure of a confidential informant's identity to all four co-defendants is denied where the state conceded one defendant was entitled to disclosure.
Once a confidential informant's identity is disclosed to any defendant, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable, and the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure to all co-defendants where the state conceded at least one was entitled to it.
[1] Once a confidential informant's identity is disclosed, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable to any co-defendant.
Previewing 1 of 1 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legal intelligence“It is elemental that once an informant's identity is disclosed, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable.”
Court explaining the fundamental principle governing confidential informant privileges after disclosure occurs.
Four co-defendants filed motions to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The state conceded it could not prosecute one co-defendant with…
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 Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
Four co-defendants filed motions for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant. At the motion hearing, the state conceded that it could not prosecute one of the co-defendants without calling the confidential informant as a witness and, therefore, the state did not oppose disclosure to that single defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted each defendant’s motion. Now, by petition for writ of certiorari, the state asks us to hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring disclosure to all four co-defendants. We decline to issue the writ.
It is elemental that once an informant’s identity is disclosed, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Pena v. State, 432 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Garcia v. State, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Given the present posture of the case in which the state has agreed that at least one of four co-defendants is entitled to disclosure, we cannot hold that the trial court’s action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Our decision, however, should not be construed as approving the sufficiency of the allegations in the motions filed by the three co-defendants.
PETITION DENIED.
LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colwell v. State, 448 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…tate, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). The admission of the evidence was quite tenuous and were it not for the overwhelming proof of guilt from the other evidence and the lack of a sufficient objection at trial we would order a new trial. State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). [*542] Convictions affirmed; sentence reversed, remanded. COBB, J., concurs. COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- Brown v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 432 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Cribbs v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Garcia v. State, 379 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)