State v. Titus

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Titus

70 So. 3d 763, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741, 2011 WL 4578314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 5, 2011

DocketNo. 4D11-2702

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 So. 3d 763 (State v. Titus) 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. Titus, 70 So. 3d 763, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741, 2011 WL 4578314 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State seeks certiorari relief following the trial court’s June 23, 2011 order granting defendant Subi Titus’s motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Titus did not file an affidavit until July 27, 2011 — one month after the order issued. The trial court never considered sworn allegations. We, therefore, find that the trial court departed from the es[764]*764sential requirements of the law when it granted disclosure without having sworn allegations of a legally cognizable defense before it. State v. Carter, 29 So.3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We make no determination of Titus’s entrapment defense, on the merits, as doing so would be premature.

We quash the trial court’s order mandating disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity. The court may make new findings based upon sworn allegations in which to determine whether the defendant has met his “burden of showing that disclosure of the Cl’s identity is necessary to a specific and available defense .... ” State v. Rivas, 25 So.3d 647, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). If so, the court should then, “conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the Cl has anything relevant and helpful to say before ordering disclosure of the Cl’s identity.” Id.

Petition granted.

MAY, C.J., POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State seeks certiorari relief following the trial court’s June 23, 2011 order granting defendant Subi Titus’s motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Titus did not file an affidavit until July 27, 2011 — one month after the order issued. The trial court never considered sworn allegations. We, therefore, find that the trial court departed from the es[764]*764sential requirements of the law when it granted disclosure without having sworn allegations of a legally cognizable defense before it. State v. Carter, 29 So.3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). We make no determination of Titus’s entrapment defense, on the merits, as doing so would be premature.

We quash the trial court’s order mandating disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity. The court may make new findings based upon sworn allegations in which to determine whether the defendant has met his “burden of showing that disclosure of the Cl’s identity is necessary to a specific and available defense .... ” State v. Rivas, 25 So.3d 647, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). If so, the court should then, “conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the Cl has anything relevant and helpful to say before ordering disclosure of the Cl’s identity.” Id.

Petition granted.

MAY, C.J., POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 3d 763, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15741, 2011 WL 4578314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-titus-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack