STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
RONALD PAUL BURNS, RESPONDENT
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 sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling disclosure of a confidential informant's identity. The court held that the defendant failed to meet the procedural requirements for such disclosure and that the trial court did not conduct an adequate hearing balancing the state's privilege against the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The court quashed the trial court's order, holding that the defendant must allege a specific defense and support it with sworn proof before the state can be compelled to disclose a confidential informant's identity, and that the trial court must conduct an adequate hearing (preferably in camera) to balance the state's privilege against the defendant's constitutional rights.
[1] A defendant seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity must allege a specific defense and support it with sworn proof.
[2] A court must conduct an adequate hearing to balance the state's privilege of nondisclosure against a defendant's right to a fair trial before compelling disclosure of a c…
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“a defendant must not only allege the specific defense sought to be proved, but also support that defense with sworn proof before the state can be compelled to disclose the identity of a confidential informant”
Establishes the procedural burden on defendants seeking confidential informant disclosure
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State sought to prevent disclosure of a confidential informant's name and address in a criminal case against Ronald Paul Burns. The trial court is…
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 Burden Of Proof For Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida has petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. Specifically, the state asks this court to quash an order compelling the state to either disclose the name and address of a confidential informant or make that individual available for a deposition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). For the reasons expressed below, we grant the state’s petition, issue the writ of certiorari and quash the order with instructions that the motion be reconsidered in light of this court’s opinions in State v. Mashke, 577 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Davila, 570 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
The state argued that the state court departed from the essential requirements of law, first by overlooking the fact that the respondent, who is the defendant in the criminal action below, failed to meet his burden of demonstrating through sworn proof the necessity of disclosure. This court has previously held that a defendant must not only allege the specific defense sought to be proved, but also support that defense with sworn proof before the state can be compelled to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. See Mashke, 577 So .2d at 612.
The state’s second claim is that, assuming the above technical requirements are met, the court failed to conduct an adequate hearing to consider the limited privilege afforded the state in nondisclosure against the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial before ruling on the motion to compel. See, e.g., Davila, 570 So. 2d at 1037-38; State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d at 1330-31; Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d at 69. Although an in camera hearing is not required in all instances, nevertheless this court has previously recognized that it is the best procedure to ensure that the rights and interests of both the defendant and the state are carefully considered. Munford, 343 So. 2d at 69.
The record before us fails to demonstrate that the trial court examined the motion in a manner consistent with this court’s previous opinions. Therefore, we grant the state’s petition, issue the writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling discovery, with instructions that the motion be reconsidered in light of the caselaw cited above.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…granting a motion by Charles Devoid to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. -We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We agree that the order departs from the essential requirements of law, and we quash the order of the trial court. A law enforcement search of Devoid’s residence produced illegal drugs which led to the possession charge he defe…
-
State v. Roy Banks, 656 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…cessity for disclosure, government misconduct, and prejudice to the accused. State v. Gonzalez, 528 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The record before us does not support dismissal of the information. As this court recently noted in State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in order to compel disclosure, a defendant must allege the specific defense sought to be proved, and must support the defense with sworn proof. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Bums and case…
-
Otero v. State, 661 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla.1985); Schummer v. State, 654 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); State v. Bums, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
Authorities Cited
- Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Mashke, 577 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Davila, 570 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)