THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARY BETTY DAVIS AND LEON DAVIS, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant in a lottery prosecution. The court held that defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that disclosure was essential to their defense or constitutionally required.
The court held that the circuit court's order requiring disclosure of the confidential informant's identity represented a departure from essential requirements of law and must be quashed. The state has a privilege of non-disclosure, and the burden is on the defendant to show why disclosure should be compelled by demonstrating that the informant will be produced at trial or that failure to disclose will infringe the defendant's constitutional rights.
[1] Disclosure of a confidential informant is not required unless the informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose their identity will infringe…
[2] The burden is on a defendant seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity to demonstrate why disclosure should be compelled, overcoming the state's privilege…
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“Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused”
States the controlling legal standard for disclosure of confidential informants under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(c)(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Betty Davis and Leon Davis were charged with aiding or assisting in the conduct of a lottery, possession of live lottery tickets, and possession …
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 Burden Of Proof For Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A petition for writ of certiorari filed by the state presents for review an order of the circuit court of Dade County requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, in a prosecution against the respondents for certain violations of the lottery law (§ 849.09 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.).
On consideration thereof in the light of the record, briefs and argument we hold the challenged order represented a departure 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 state to be ordered to supply certain particulars, and the names of witnesses to be relied upon by the state and names and addresses of witnesses whose testimony may be helpful to the defendants, included a request that the state be ordered to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, viz: “To order the state to give to the defendants the names and addresses of the informer, as he or she has played an integral part in the events leading up to the arrest and has made certain overt acts which may-make him/her a part of the entire arrest pattern upon which the arrest warrants and search warrants were based and that the defendants would need to take the deposition and make further discovery of said confidential informer or informers to best prepare a defense.”
Other than that reference to “defense” in the motion, there was no showing in the motion or in the hearing thereon of any proposed defense incident to which the identity of the informant would be essentially relevant or material. The basis, according to the record, upon which the court granted the motion was the disclosure at the hearing that the search, and the resultant arrest and charge of the defendants, stemmed from information of one who had made a lottery purchase at the location involved.
Rule 3.220(c)(2) RCrP states: “Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial, or a failure to disclose his identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused”.
In view of the State’s privilege of non-disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant and the well-founded policy against it, the burden is on a defendant claiming an exception to the rule to show why disclosure should be compelled. Treverrow v. State, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 250, 252; Doe v. State, supra. Under the law as outlined in the decisions cited herein, there was no sufficient showing made for the ordered disclosure.
The policy favoring non-disclosure by the state well outweighed such reason as the defendants presented for desiring to obtain the identity of the informant. Moreover, under the rule above quoted, if the state were to use the informant as a witness at the trial his identity should and would be disclosed, and the defendants have further protection through being entitled to receive a witness list from the state.
Certiorari is granted and the order for disclosure of the identity of the informant is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. 1st DCA 1975) (defendant asserted that without the confidential informant, "the defendant could not prepare a defense,” but failed either to specify this defense or show how the informant’s testimony would be relevant or material); State v. Davis, 308 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (no defense asserted by defendant to the charged lottery violations); Doe v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (no defense asserted by defendant to the charged crime of unlawful sale of heroin, although informant was present…
-
Drayton v. State, 372 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…1974), and Treverrow v. State, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1967). The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he warrants an exception to the general rule of non-disclosure. See State v. Jones, 323 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and State v. Davis, 308 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Applying the tests of Roviaro and Treverrow, we are of the opinion that appellant has not met his burden of proof in the instant case. First, appellant contends that the name of the informant, who he denies existed, should be di…
-
State v. Anderson, 329 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…respect to the identity of a confidential informant is that the state has a privilege of nondisclosure, and the burden is on a defendant claiming an exception to the rule to show why disclosure should be compelled. See State v. Davis, Fla.App.1975, 308 So. 2d 539; and Rule 3.220(c)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. Among the fac-to,rs which might require disclosure are whether a defendant’s identity is in issue and whether the informant was an active participant in the offense charged agains…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Westberry v. Daves Auto Parts, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1967)
- Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- DOE v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Maynor Hall v. State, 219 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Jackson v. State, 307 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)