ROGER JACKSON, APPELLANT,
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and address.
[1] The identity and address of a confidential informant are generally not subject to disclosure.
[2] Disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is not required when the informant's activities were not material to the defendant's case.
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 intelligenceA confidential informant helped an undercover officer contact a codefendant, who then introduced the officer to the defendant. The defendant sold hero…
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 Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from an adjudication of guilt for the sale and possession of heroin assigns as error the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of the identity and address of a confidential informant.
The essential facts are that a confidential informant aided an undercover police officer in being put in contact with one Davis, codefendant below, who in turn put the police officer in contact with appellant, defendant below. The defendant, in the presence of the confidential informant and codefendant Davis, sold a packet of heroin to the police officer. Defendant, on appeal, complains that the confidential informant’s identity and address should have been disclosed. Defendant, himself, admits that the general rule in Florida gravitates against such disclosure, but defendant also calls our attention to exceptions to the rule.
We first note that this case is clearly distinguishable from those cases in which the informant himself had direct dealings with the defendant. See Monserrate v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 444. And although it is apparent here that the confidential informant’s activities in assisting the police officer in effectuating the ultimate sale of the narcotics were significant, it is also apparent that the informant’s activities were not so material as to bring this case within the exceptions to the general rule. See Doe v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 11 and Kraus v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 214. As to the question of “materiality” of. such information that is sought to be disclosed, see Harrington v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So. 2d 495, 497.
In passing, we feel compelled to note that even though the State did not furnish the name and address of the informant, the record strongly indicates defense counsel’s awareness of the informant’s identity.
Finding that no showing has been made to overcome the general rule of non-disclosure of the identity of confidential informants, we hereby affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to compel disclosure.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Davis, 308 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…rture from essential requirements of law and must be quashed, on authority of Harrington v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 495; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 757; Doe v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 11; Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1975, 307 So. 2d 188 (filed January 28, 1975). By information the defendants were charged (1) with aiding or assisting in conduct of a lottery, (2) possession of live lottery tickets and (3) possession of lottery papers and records. A motion by defendants for the stat…
-
Grimes v. State, 321 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…f this case do not demonstrate that disclosure of the informant’s real name and address (and his criminal record) prior to or during trial was material to the accused’s defense or essential to a fair determination of the cause. See Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 188, Third District Court of Appeal Case No. 74 — 1206 opinion filed January 28, 1975. Nor was such nondisclosure an infringement upon the constitutional rights of the accused. In this regard I am not unmindful of the decision of the United States Supr…
-
Scippio v. State, 348 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…demonstrate reversible error, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed. See Treverrow v. State, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1967); State v. Crawford, 257 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1972); Pickrell v. State, 301 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1974); Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); State v. Davis, 308 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Hawkins v. State, 312 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Monserrate v. State, 232 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- DOE v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Kraus v. State, 243 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)