STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
STANLEY RAPHAEL JEAN
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.
When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding an informant's involvement that, if true, would support a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing before ordering disclosure of the informant's identity.
[1] When a defendant seeks disclosure of a confidential informant by filing a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts that, if true, would support a specific defense, the tr…
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“When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure.”
Court's statement of the procedural requirement applicable when a defendant seeks disclosure of a confidential informant.
The State appealed an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant's identity. The trial court ordered disclosure without conducting the in-…
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 Writ Of Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. See, e.g., State v.
Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires. See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("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."); see also Bailey v. State,
994 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure."). We accordingly quash the order to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.
Petition granted; order quashed.
SILBERMAN, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)