STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN ROBERTS, 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 State appeals an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a cocaine sale case. The appellate court grants the State's petition for certiorari and quashes the trial court's disclosure order because the trial court failed to hold an in camera hearing before ordering disclosure, violating established procedural requirements.
A trial court must hold an in camera hearing to determine whether disclosure of a confidential informant's identity would be relevant and helpful to the defendant's defense before ordering disclosure. The trial court's failure to conduct such a hearing violated clearly established principles of law.
[1] A trial court must hold an in camera hearing to determine if disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is relevant and helpful to the defense after the defendant…
[2] Failure to hold an in camera hearing before ordering the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity constitutes a violation of clearly established law resulting in…
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“Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for trial courts before ordering disclosure of a confidential informant's identity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen Roberts was charged with sale of cocaine and delivery of cocaine to a minor. Roberts filed a motion to compel 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 Identity Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The State appeals an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. Because this is not an order appealable by the State, see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c), we have treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. Based on the trial court’s failure to hold an in camera hearing prior to ordering the disclosure, we grant the writ and quash the order compelling disclosure.
Allen Roberts was charged by information with sale of cocaine and delivery of cocaine to a minor. Roberts filed a motion to compel the disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. In the motion, Roberts asserted a defense of misidentification. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the State to disclose the identity. The trial court denied the State’s request for an in camera hearing prior to disclosure.
Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense. Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed in part on other grounds, 357 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1978).
See also 24 Fla. Jur.2d, Evidence & Witnesses § 748 (1995).
When a defendant comes close to carrying this burden, “the trial court is ... required to order the [S]tate to produce the confidential informant for the court’s in camera review to determine if the subject informant is a helpful witness to the defense being raised by the defendant.” State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Because the trial court’s order is a violation of clearly established principles of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, we grant the petition for certiorari. On remand, the trial court shall vacate the order compelling disclosure until it determines, after an in camera hearing, whether the informant’s testimony would be relevant and helpful to Roberts’ misidentification defense. See State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d 416, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (remanding for in camera hearing to determine if the confidential informants’ testimony “would tend to exculpate the defendants or if it would be materially at variance with the testimony of the police officers”).
Petition granted, order requiring disclosure quashed, and remanded for further proceedings.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
McCRAY v. State, 730 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…CASANUEVA, Judge. Todd A McCray appeals an order denying disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. We conclude that Mr. McCray has made the necessary showing under State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), to require an in camera inspection by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse. Prior to trial, Mr. McCray filed a sworn motion to compel the disclosure of the confidential informant. The motion asserted that the confidential in…
-
Wilson v. State, 13 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…meets his “initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense.” State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Sworn allegations supporting a misidentification defense for which the Cl’s testimony would be helpful are sufficient to make the initial showing requiring production of the Cl for an in camera hearing. Miller, 729 So. 2d at…
-
State v. LaBRON, 24 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ther the Cl’s testimony would assist the defense of entrapment. This kind of non-final order is renewable by certiorari, as it presents the possibility of irreparable harm. E.g., State v. Ayala, 713 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The state has a limited privilege to withhold the Cl’s identity. Miller v. State, 729 So. 2d 417, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (quoting from Roviaro v. United States, 353…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Munford, 357 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1978)
- Munford v. State, 343 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Campbell v. Pyms-Suchman Real Est. Co., 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)