NO. 07- 01- 0459- CR I N THE CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENT H DIST RICT OF T EXAS AT AMARI LLO PANEL C DECEMBER 17, 2002

____________

____________

______ JULI US FA RMER S ANDERS, APPE LLANT

V. THE ST ATE OF TEX

AS, APPELLEE

____________

____________

_________ FR OM TH E 2 51 ST D IST R IC T C OU R T O F P OT TE R C OU N TY; NO. 41, 839-C; HONORABLE PATRI CK A. PI RTLE, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNS ON, JJ. Upon a pl ea of

not gui lt y, appel la nt was convi ct ed bya j ury of posses si on of

mari huana and puni shment

wa s ass essed b ya j ury attwo ye ars confi nement in a state j ai l fac il it y an d a $10,0 00 fine . By two issu es , ap pe llan t qu es tion s wh eth er (1 ) th e S tat e is req uired to claim its in for merpri vil ege i n order to in it ia te a heari ng purs uantto Rule of E viden ce 508( b) and (2)the tr ia l court

abused i ts di screti on i n deny in g hi s mot io n to requi re di scl osure of the confid enti al

### 2

informant’s testimo ny wher e the State did n ot inv oke its info rmer pr ivile ge pu rsu an t to R ule 508( b). Bas ed upo n t he rat i onal e exp res sed h ere i n, w e af fi rm. Appel la ntdoes not chall enge the suffi ciency of the e viden ce; thus , onl y a bri ef r eci tat io n of the fac ts is ne ce ss ar y. Pu rsu an t to a se ar ch warr an t ba se d u po n in for ma tion fro m a cre dib le confid ent ia l inf

ormant, Off

icer David Ponce, a narcoti cs agent wi th the Amari ll o Poli ce De pa rtme nt, executed a sear ch warrant o f a resi dence unde r appellant’ s control . Ponce di scovered an “identifi er,” i. e. , an envel ope addressed to appel la nt be ari ng th e address of the residence to be searched as we llas mar ih uana. Exper t test imon y es tabl is hed tha t 195 .01 grams w ere f ound. Byhi s t wo is sues, appel la nt as serts t he St ate d id not cl ai m its i nfor mer pr ivi le ge pursu antto Rule 508(b)of the Texas Rul es of Evid ence and by h issecond i ssue conten ds the tr ia l cour

t abu sed i ts di screti on in de nying his mo tion to requi re di scl osure of the confi denti al informer’s i denti ty

becaus e the Sta te di d not i nvoke t he i nfor mer’spri vil ege. Consi deri ng these two issues together, we disagree. Rul e 508(a) extends a qual if ie d pri vil ege t o the Uni ted S tates or a state o r sub di vis io n the reof to refuse to di scl ose t he i denti ty of a pers on who fur ni shed infor mation or assi sted i n an investigat ion of a possi ble cri me. Subsection (b)provides: (b) Wh o Ma y Cl ai m. The p rivile ge ma y b e c la imed by an app rop riate re prese nt at i ve of the publ ic ent it y to whi ch the in for mati on wa s furni shed, except the pri vilege shal l not be all owed in crimi nal cases i f t he state objects.

### 3

Al thoug h the State or pr osecut in g attorney

may veto as sert io n of the p ri vil ege by anoth er pu blic en tity, the pri vil ege af forded b y Rule 508(a) ext ends to the Uni ted S tates or a state o r subdi vis io n thereof. Further, the pri vil ege may be cla ime d o nly b y a re pr es en tat ive of th e p ub lic en tity wh ic h rec ei ved the i nfor mati on, i n thi s i nst ance, Off ic er Ponce asa repr

esentati ve of t he Am ar illo Pol ic e Depart men t. See 2A Steven Goode, Ol in Guy W el lb orn, I I I , and M. Mi chael Sha rlot, Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evi dence 352 (Texa s Pra ctice 2 00 2). Ru le 508 does not presc ri be a spec if ic proc edure f

or as sert io n of the privileg e. I ndeed, itdoes no t require that the pri vil ege b e claimed in wri ting nor by motion for protective order, moti on i n l imi ne, n or ot herw is e, an d appel la nt c ites no aut hori ty setti ng fo rt h a sp ec ific proced ure for

asser ti ng th e pri vil ege. At

the pret ri al heari ng on appellant ’s moti on to discl ose the confid enti al i nfor mant’ s i denti ty , Of fi cer P once, as “ representati ve of t he publ ic en tit y to whi ch the info rma tion was furnish ed ,” tes ti fi ed th at he di d not wa nt t he i denti ty

of hi s conf

id enti al inform an t disclos ed for sa fetyreas ons. T he search warrant a ls o rec ited, “ [t]he a ffia nt [ Off ic er Ponce] does not

wi sh to reveal the id enti ty of the confi denti al i nfor mant f or t he protect io n and saf ety of the confi denti al i nfor mant. ” Bas ed on our revi ewof

the recor

d, we concl ude Of

fi cer Ponce suf

fi ci entl y c la imed the in for mer pr ivi le ge and t hus, the tr ia l cou rtdi d n ot ab use its di screti on in de nying app ellant’s mo tion to d isclose the ide ntityof the informer. Appellant ’s fi rst and sec ond i ssuesare over rul ed. Accor di ngl y, the ju dgment of t he tria l court i s af fi rmed.

### 4 Do n H . Re av is Justi ce Do not publ is h.