State v. Murray

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Murray

443 So. 2d 461, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1984

DocketNo. 83-680

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 461 (State v. Murray) 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. Murray, 443 So. 2d 461, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11270 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

HURLEY, Judge.

Four co-defendants filed motions for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant. At the motion hearing, the state conceded that it could not prosecute one of the co-defendants without calling the confidential informant as a witness and, therefore, the state did not oppose disclosure to that single defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted each defendant’s motion. Now, by petition for writ of certiorari, the state asks us to hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring disclosure to all four co-defendants. We decline to issue the writ.

It is elemental that once an informant’s identity is disclosed, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Pena v. State, 432 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Garcia v. State, 379 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Given the present posture of the case in which the state has agreed that at least one of four co-defendants is entitled to disclosure, we cannot hold that the trial court’s action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Our decision, however, should not be construed as approving the sufficiency of the allegations in the motions filed by the three co-defendants.

PETITION DENIED.

LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

HURLEY, Judge.

Four co-defendants filed motions for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant. At the motion hearing, the state conceded that it could not prosecute one of the co-defendants without calling the confidential informant as a witness and, therefore, the state did not oppose disclosure to that single defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted each defendant’s motion. Now, by petition for writ of certiorari, the state asks us to hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring disclosure to all four co-defendants. We decline to issue the writ.

It is elemental that once an informant’s identity is disclosed, the privilege of non-disclosure is no longer applicable. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Pena v. State, 432 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Garcia v. State, 379 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Given the present posture of the case in which the state has agreed that at least one of four co-defendants is entitled to disclosure, we cannot hold that the trial court’s action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Our decision, however, should not be construed as approving the sufficiency of the allegations in the motions filed by the three co-defendants.

PETITION DENIED.

LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 461, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murray-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack