State v. Medlin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Medlin

581 So. 2d 595, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1991 WL 13566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 1991

DocketNo. 90-01603

StatusPublished

This text of 581 So. 2d 595 (State v. Medlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Medlin, 581 So. 2d 595, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1991 WL 13566 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state petitions for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to vacate an order that granted the defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant. We have jurisdiction. See State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988); State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

In accordance with the principles enunciated in the factually similar case of Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978), we hold that the defendant made a sufficient initial showing to suggest that nondisclosure of the informant’s identity would hinder the preparation of his entrapment defense. The record, however, does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighs the state’s interest in protecting the identity of the informer. Munford, 343 So.2d at 69. As such, we further hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in granting the motion to compel disclosure without first conducting an in camera hearing to determine whether the informant's testimony might be helpful to the defendant.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, issue the writ, and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to vacate the order compelling disclosure of the informant's identity and for further proceedings in compliance with Munford.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state petitions for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to vacate an order that granted the defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant. We have jurisdiction. See State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988); State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

In accordance with the principles enunciated in the factually similar case of Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978), we hold that the defendant made a sufficient initial showing to suggest that nondisclosure of the informant’s identity would hinder the preparation of his entrapment defense. The record, however, does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighs the state’s interest in protecting the identity of the informer. Munford, 343 So.2d at 69. As such, we further hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in granting the motion to compel disclosure without first conducting an in camera hearing to determine whether the informant's testimony might be helpful to the defendant.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, issue the writ, and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to vacate the order compelling disclosure of the informant's identity and for further proceedings in compliance with Munford.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 So. 2d 595, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 883, 1991 WL 13566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-medlin-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack