JOHN RABREAU AND JAMES MALTA, APPELLANTS,
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.
John Rabreau and James Malta appealed their convictions for unlawful possession and sale of a narcotic drug, arguing that the trial court erred by denying their demand for the identity of a confidential informer. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error where the informer's name was ultimately disclosed during trial and the evidence of guilt was clear and convincing.
The court held that no reversible error was demonstrated because although the State initially failed to reveal the confidential informer's name immediately, the name was ultimately disclosed during trial, the defendant Malta already knew the informer's identity, the evidence of guilt was clear and convincing, and appellants received a fair trial.
[1] A defendant's right to disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is not absolute and depends on the circumstances of the case.
[2] A defendant must make a timely and specific request for the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity.
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“The question thus is simply whether the appellants received a fair trial under the applicable law.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard: even though evidence of guilt is clear, the appellate court must determine if a fair trial was afforded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRabreau and Malta were jointly charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic drug and sale of a narcotic drug. During trial, when a federal agent was…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Narcotic Drug cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, John Rabreau and James Malta, were jointly charged and tried for (a) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and (b) sale of a narcotic drug. A single sentence was imposed on each defendant: Rabreau was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison: Malta was sentenced to forty-eight months in prison. On this appeal the same point is argued by both appel*65lants.1 The point contends that the court committed reversible error when it denied appellants’ demands for the name of the confidential informer who participated in the discussion leading to the consummation of the crime.
Even though no point is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence, we have read the record and find that the proof of guilt is clear and convincing as to each appellant. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 85. The question thus is simply whether the appellants received a fair trial under the applicable law.
In argument, the appellants imply a pretrial request for the name of the confidential informer. The record fails to support this implication. The first allusion in the record to the existence of a confidential informer is found upon the cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The special agent was the second witness for the State. An objection to a question asking the name of the confidential informer was sustained. The only ground presented for the disclosure by defendants’ counsel was that the State had “indicated to me this morning in objecting to taking the deposition of the confidential informant, that they would give it to me at the time of trial.” After a recess, and during the continued cross-examination of the same special agent, the name of the informer was given by the witness. Further questions disclosed that the defendant Malta knew the informer’s name and former address. Both defendants took the stand in their own behalf. Each denied the possession and denied that there was a sale. There was no evidence to support a plea of entrapment, and the State proved a sale to the officers.
Under these circumstances, no error is demonstrated because the State failed to reveal the name of the confidential informer when the first request was made. Cf. Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rabreau v. State, 275 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 269 So. 2d 64. CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Parker v. State, 237 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Turner v. The Honorable Richard H. Cooper, 267 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)