State v. Roberts

576 So. 2d 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1089, 1991 WL 17305
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 13, 1991
DocketNo. 90-03519
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 340 (State v. Roberts) 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. Roberts, 576 So. 2d 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1089, 1991 WL 17305 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in granting the defendant’s motion to compel disclosure of the names of other individuals arrested on criminal charges unrelated to this case through the state’s use of the same confidential informant employed in arresting this defendant. After reviewing the defendant’s motion to compel and the transcript of the hearing on the motion, we conclude that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to meet even a threshold showing that the disclosure of the names of these individuals is necessary to prove her defense of entrapment.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and issue the writ to the trial court with directions on remand to vacate the order compelling disclosure and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

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

Related

Atchley v. FIRST UNION BK. OF FLORIDA
576 So. 2d 340 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
576 So. 2d 340, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1089, 1991 WL 17305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberts-fladistctapp-1991.