State v. Cullen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cullen

876 P.2d 864, 128 Or. App. 436, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 954

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 22, 1994

Docket92-1027 CR; CA A78194

StatusPublished

This text of 876 P.2d 864 (State v. Cullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cullen, 876 P.2d 864, 128 Or. App. 436, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 954 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDSON, C. J.

The state appeals a judgment entered before trial dismissing an indictment against defendant. ORS 138.060-(1); State v. Martinez, 97 Or App 170, 776 P2d 3 (1989). We reverse and remand.

Defendant moved, before trial, to require the state to disclose the identity of several unnamed informants referred to in an affidavit for a search warrant that was executed at her home. The court granted the motion as to one informant. The state elected not to disclose the informant’s identity, and the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. OEC 510(4)(b).

The state argues that the court erred in ordering it to disclose the identity of the informant. OEC 510(2) provides a privilege from disclosing the identity of an informant.¹ However, under OEC 510(4)(b), no privilege exists

“[i]f it appears from the evidence in the case or from other showing by a party that an informer may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case.”

In State v. Wood, 114 Or App 601, 607, 836 P2d 176, rev den 314 Or 574 (1992), we said that disclosure under this provision is required “only if the informant can provide evidence useful to the defense.” See also State v. Vatland, 123 Or App 577, 581, 860 P2d 820 (1993), rev den 318 Or 583 (1994). Defendant did not point to any facts, nor did the court make any findings on the basis of the record, that indicate that the unnamed informant would provide evidence useful to the defense. The trial court erred in ordering the state to disclose the identity of the informant and, therefore, in dismissing the case under OEC 510(4)(b).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHARDSON, C. J.

The state appeals a judgment entered before trial dismissing an indictment against defendant. ORS 138.060-(1); State v. Martinez, 97 Or App 170, 776 P2d 3 (1989). We reverse and remand.

Defendant moved, before trial, to require the state to disclose the identity of several unnamed informants referred to in an affidavit for a search warrant that was executed at her home. The court granted the motion as to one informant. The state elected not to disclose the informant’s identity, and the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. OEC 510(4)(b).

The state argues that the court erred in ordering it to disclose the identity of the informant. OEC 510(2) provides a privilege from disclosing the identity of an informant.¹ However, under OEC 510(4)(b), no privilege exists

“[i]f it appears from the evidence in the case or from other showing by a party that an informer may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case.”

In State v. Wood, 114 Or App 601, 607, 836 P2d 176, rev den 314 Or 574 (1992), we said that disclosure under this provision is required “only if the informant can provide evidence useful to the defense.” See also State v. Vatland, 123 Or App 577, 581, 860 P2d 820 (1993), rev den 318 Or 583 (1994). Defendant did not point to any facts, nor did the court make any findings on the basis of the record, that indicate that the unnamed informant would provide evidence useful to the defense. The trial court erred in ordering the state to disclose the identity of the informant and, therefore, in dismissing the case under OEC 510(4)(b).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 P.2d 864, 128 Or. App. 436, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cullen-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack