THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILBUR JONES, 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 State appeals the dismissal of a 14-count drug information against Wilbur Jones, where the trial court ordered disclosure of a confidential informant's identity based on a mistaken belief that it had previously ordered such disclosure. The appellate court reverses, holding that the defendant failed to establish the materiality required to overcome the State's privilege of non-disclosure regarding confidential informants.
The court holds that the State has a privilege of non-disclosure regarding confidential informants' identities, and the burden is on the defendant to show why disclosure should be required. Here, there was no evidentiary showing that the informant's testimony would have been of such essential relevancy as to justify disclosure, so the trial court's order requiring disclosure was improper.
[1] The State has a privilege of non-disclosure regarding the identity of a confidential informant.
[2] The burden is on the defendant claiming an exception to the privilege of non-disclosure to show why disclosure of a confidential informant should be required.
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 intelligence“the State has a privilege of non-disclosure and the burden is on the defendant claiming an exception to the privilege to show why disclosure should be required”
Establishes the legal standard for confidential informant disclosure, placing the burden on the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilbur Jones was charged on September 23, 1974, with sale and possession of heroin. Defense counsel filed a motion to compel disclosure of the confide…
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.
The defendant, Wilbur Jones, was charged on September 23, 1974, by a 14-count information with the sale and possession of heroin. The information was dismissed on April 18, 1975, by the trial court for the failure of the State to disclose the name of the confidential informant to defense counsel. The State appeals. We reverse.
On October 17, 1974, defense counsel filed an unverified motion to compel the State to supply the name of the confidential informant. The motion gave no definite reason other than such information was necessary to insure a full and adequate defense. On January 9, 1975, the motion in question came on to be heard before the trial judge, at which time defense counsel said that the confidential informant was part of the overall transaction and, therefore, he wanted a disclosure of such informant. The court deferred ruling stating, in effect, that if there were testimony he would hear it. The motion to compel next came before the court on January 20, 1975, at which time the State argued that before an order requiring disclosure can be entered, it was up to the defense to establish the materiality of the disclosure of the confidential informant. Counsel for defendant responded that rather than have an evidentiary hearing, he would take the deposition of a police officer which would adduce evidence supporting the materiality and the need for the disclosure of the informant. Thereafter, hearing was held on February 19, 1975, at which time the court was mistakenly put under the impression that the court had, on four previous occasions, ordered the State to give the name and address of the informant to defendant’s counsel. The court then ordered the State to give to defendant’s counsel, in writing, the name of the confidential informant.
The State’s motion to rectify the court’s ruling was denied on February 26, 1975.
In the case of State v. Davis, Fla.App.1975, 308 So. 2d 539, this court held, regarding the identity of a confidential informant, that the State has a privilege of non-disclosure and the burden is on the defendant claiming an exception to the privilege to show why disclosure should be required. Accord King v. State, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 62; English v. State, Fla.App.1974, 301 So. 2d 813.
Careful review of the record discloses no evidentiary showing in the motion or at the hearings before the trial court, that the testimony of the confidential informant would have been of such essential relevancy as to justify a required disclosure. Furthermore, the record does not reflect any orders, written or oral, prior to February 19, 1975, requiring the State to disclose the name of the informant.
Accordingly, the order of dismissal is vacated, the cause is reinstated and remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Acosta, 439 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…n order to sustain this burden, a defendant first must allege a specific possible defense. The bare assertion that disclosure is needed to insure a full and adequate defense is insufficient to overcome the privilege of nondisclosure. State v. Jones, 323 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Moreover, a defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense. State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The instant defendants asserted they were entrapped by the informant because the informan…
-
Drayton v. State, 372 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d 639; United States v. Toombs, 497 F. 2d 88 (5th Cir. 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 nam…
-
State v. Anderson, 329 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…We have reviewed the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law and have concluded no reversible error has been shown. This case is distinguishable from State v. Jones, Fla. App.1975, 323 So. 2d 595, where the record disclosed no evidentiary showing was made before the trial court that the testimony of the confidential informant would have been of such essential relevancy as to justify a required disclosure. Here, the record on appeal, to the e…
Authorities Cited
- English v. State, 301 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Davis, 308 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- King v. State, 296 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)