ANGEL ALDAZABAL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The Florida appellate court reversed a narcotics conviction because the state deliberately failed to obtain and disclose the confidential informant's address, despite the informant being a material and vital witness to the crimes. The court held that the state's obligation to disclose a material witness informant's identity includes all information necessary to locate the witness.
The conviction is reversed and the appellant is directed to be discharged. The state's duty to disclose a material witness informant's identity includes all pertinent information helpful in locating the witness, not merely disclosing what limited information the state has chosen to obtain.
[1] The State has a duty to disclose a material witness informant's identity, which includes all pertinent information helpful in locating the witness.
[2] The State's obligation to disclose a material witness informant's identity is not fulfilled by revealing only what the State knows if that information is inadequate for l…
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 duty of the State to disclose a material witness informer's identity on pain of dismissal imposed by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 [77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639], 1957; Matthews v. State [Fla.1950], 44 So. 2d 664, and Monserrate v. State [Fla.App.1970], 232 So. 2d 444, contemplates an "identity" that includes all pertinent information helpful in locating the witnesses.”
Establishes the scope of the state's disclosure obligation regarding material witness informants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngel Aldazabal was charged with narcotics offenses. A confidential informant was the only actual participant in two of the narcotics sales involved. …
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 Material Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Because the confidential informant was the only actual participant in two of the narcotics sales involved, the investigating police officer and the prosecution must have known, as the trial judge expressly and correctly determined, that he was a material and vital witness in the case. Nonetheless, they deliberately failed to determine the c.i.’s whereabouts and then, as ordered, to provide the defense with his address so he could be located to appear at the trial. In State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) we held, approving the trial court’s dismissal of the prosecution on this basis, that
“the duty of the State to disclose a material witness informer’s identity on pain of dismissal imposed by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 [77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639], 1957; Matthews v. State [Fla.1950], 44 So. 2d 664, and Monserrate v. State [Fla.App.1970], 232 So. 2d 444, contemplates an “identity” that includes all pertinent information helpful in locating the witnesses. The Court specifically rejects the view that the State has fulfilled its obligation in this regard when it reveals all that it knows, if what it has arranged to know is inadequate for location purposes.”
247 So. 2d at 344. The record in this case, which shows, for example, that the officer deliberately did not so much as ask the c.i. his address when he spoke to him in a long distance call shortly before the trial, demonstrates an even more marked degree of calculated official ignorance than that in Jones. On the authority of the Jones case, therefore, the conviction under review is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ng to reveal the name and address of the confidential informant upon court order, but, through their calculated official ignorance or deliberate intentional activity, the informant has disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); compare Guzman v. State, 498 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). There is further authority that a trial court is precluded fr…
-
State v. Maritsa Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…BASKIN, Judge (dissenting). I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the information based on the state’s failure to use due diligence in locating and producing a confidential informant, see Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); I therefore dissent from the majority opinion. The trial judge’s findings set forth in full in his order provide ample reason for dismissal: [*684] ORDER DISMISSING CASE AGAINST…
-
State v. Vasquez, 495 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Aldazabal v. State, 471 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Monserrate v. State, 232 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- State v. Jones, 247 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Mathews v. State, 44 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1950)