STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY BANKS, 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 presence of a confidential informant during a drug transaction does not automatically compel disclosure of their identity, and dismissal of charges is not automatic upon failure to disclose.
The State charged Roy Banks with delivery of cocaine. Banks moved to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, alleging entrapment. The trial cou…
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 Prejudice To The Accused cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
The State of Florida appeals an order dismissing the information in this case for failure of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. We reverse.
Appellee, Roy Banks, was charged with delivery of crack cocaine. He filed a motion to compel disclosure of the state’s confidential informant alleging that he intended to show that he was entrapped. The trial court granted this motion based on the stipulation that the informant was present during the alleged drug transaction. When the state failed to disclose the informant, the court dismissed the information. The fact that the confidential informant was present during the drug transaction does not automatically compel his disclosure. See State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Nor does the failure of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant upon court order automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal of the charges. There must be a determination as to the necessity for disclosure, government misconduct, and prejudice to the accused. State v. Gonzalez, 528 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The record before us does not support dismissal of the information. As this court recently noted in State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in order to compel disclosure, a defendant must allege the specific defense sought to be proved, and must support the defense with sworn proof. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with Bums and cases cited therein.
Reversed.
BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Devoid, 706 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…. 2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In order to establish entitlement to the informant’s identity, the movant must assert a specific defense to the charge which will be impeded by the failure to learn of the informant’s identity. See State v. Banks, 656 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Burns, 651 So. 2d at 718. The defense Devoid advanced in his motion — that he was not the person selling the drugs — is not a defense to the possession of contraband discovered at a different time in a different place. Inste…
-
State v. Simmons, 944 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), nor does the failure of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant upon court order automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal of the charges. See State v. Banks, 656 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). There must be a determination as to the necessity for disclosure, government misconduct, and prejudice to the accused. See id. Miller, 729 So. 2d at 420. More importantly, the informant in Miller was an active participant. He is…
-
Miller v. State, 729 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), nor does the failure of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant upon court order automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal of the charges. See State v. Banks, 656 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). There must be a determination as to the necessity for disclosure, government misconduct, and prejudice to the accused. See id. Under the facts of this ease, appellant met his initial burden of showing that disclosure was necessa…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carnegie, 472 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Burns, 651 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Earles Gonzalez, 528 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)