Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert E. BROWN, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-11-06
Citations: 285 So. 2d 52
Docket Number: No. 73-992
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert E. BROWN, Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 285
Pages: 52–52

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert E. BROWN, Respondent.
No. 73-992.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 6, 1973.
Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State’s Atty., for petitioner.
Phillip Hubbart, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By petition for certiorari, the State seeks review of an order requiring the disclosure of the name of a confidential informant, contending that the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of the law in requiring the disclosure of same when the only evidence before the trial judge [upon the motion to compel disclosure] demonstrated that the confidential informant did not introduce the defendant to the law enforcement officer and did not witness the alleged criminal transaction.
Therefore, it appears that the trial judge committed a departure from the essential requirements of the law and erred in this ruling, under the authority of this court's opinion in Doe v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 11. See also: City of Miami v. Jones, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 775.
The order compelling disclosure be and the same is hereby quashed.
. State v. Andres, 148 Fla. 742, 5 So.2d 7; State v. Coyle, Fla.App.1906, 181 So.2d 671; State v. Crews, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 754; State v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 402, quashed in part Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 489.