TODD A. MCCRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Todd McCray appealed an order denying disclosure of a confidential informant's identity in a cocaine sale charge. The court held that McCray met the threshold requirement under State v. Roberts for an in camera hearing where the trial court can evaluate whether the informant's testimony would help establish his misidentification defense.
The court held that McCray made the necessary showing under State v. Roberts to require an in camera inspection, where the trial court must determine whether the informant's testimony would be helpful to McCray's misidentification defense. If the informant's testimony tends to exculpate McCray or materially varies from the police officer's identification testimony, a new trial with informant disclosure is required; otherwise, the conviction is reinstated.
[1] A defendant may overcome the state's privilege to protect a confidential informant's identity when disclosure is relevant to the accused's defense or essential to a fair…
[2] Once a defendant meets the initial burden of showing that disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court must hold…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This privilege may be overcome where the disclosure of an informant's identity is relevant to the accused's defense or essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue.”
Establishes the legal standard for when the confidential informant privilege may be overcome.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCray was charged with cocaine sale. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant, asserting that the informa…
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 Misidentification Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
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 informant apparently knew the defendant, that the confidential informant was present when the crime transpired, that the undercover officer misidentified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, that the confidential informant’s testimony was essential to the defense of misidentification, and that the defendant was not involved in the sale of cocaine as charged.
In Florida, the State has a limited privilege to protect the confidential informant’s identity. This privilege may be overcome where the disclosure of an informant’s identity is relevant to the accused’s defense or essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). In Roberts, we held that once a defendant meets the initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, a trial eourt must hold an in camera hearing to determine whether the informant has information helpful to the specific defense. Id. at 723 (citing State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)).
Mr. McCray met his initial burden under Roberts because his sworn motion set forth a sufficient factual basis to support the legal defense of misidentification. In comparison, in State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we rejected a conclusory allegation to the effect that nondisclosure of the confidential informant’s identity would detrimentally impact the defendant’s ability, to establish possible defenses. Rather than speculating, as in Carnegie, Mr. McCray has demonstrated a sound factual basis for concluding that the confidential informant is an essential witness for a specific defense. Here, in an in camera inspection, the trial court can evaluate whether the confidential informant’s testimony is helpful to Mr. McCray’s defense of misidentification. See State v. Williams, 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for an in camera inspection. The trial court shall determine if the confidential informant’s testimony tends to exculpate Mr. McCray on the misidentification issue or varies materially from the testimony of the police officer who identified Mr. McCray at trial. If it does, a new trial will be required with the disclosure of the informant’s identity ordered; if not, the determination should contain specific findings to support that conclusion and the conviction should be reinstated.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…losure may be overcome when an informant’s identity or the content of the informant’s communication would be relevant and helpful to a specific defense or when disclosure is “essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue.” McCray v. State, 730 So. 2d 817, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(g)(2).1 When asserting that disclosure of information is necessary to establish a specific defense, “[t]he defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disc…
-
State v. Darion A. Carter, 29 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…CA 2007). The State’s privilege of nondisclosure may be overcome if the State plans to call the informant as a witness at trial or when disclosure is “ ‘essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue.’ ” Id. at 467 (quoting McCray v. State, 730 So. 2d 817, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(g)(2). Carter contends disclosure is essential to his ability to establish his defense of mis-identification. “When asserting that disclosure of information is necessary to establish a specif…
-
Simmons v. State, 887 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2004)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in State v. Simmons, 887 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), which certified conflict with the decision in McCray v. State, 730 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we quash the Third District’s decision and instruct the district court to remand this case to the trial court for further factual developme…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Campbell v. Pyms-Suchman Real Est. Co., 369 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)