Case Name: Eddy HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-05-09
Citations: 312 So. 2d 229
Docket Number: No. V-55
Parties: Eddy HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: McCORD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 312
Pages: 229–231

Head Matter:
Eddy HAWKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. V-55.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 9, 1975.
Jeffrey H. Barker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
MILLS, Judge.
The issue here is whether the trial court erred by denying defendant-appellant's motion to compel the State-appellee to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The trial court was correct and we affirm.
As a result of a meeting between an undercover agent for the State and a confidential informant, the agent and informant proceeded to defendant's mobile home for the purpose of the agent buying illegal drugs from defendant. The agent was introduced to defendant by the informant and after general conversation concerning narcotics, the defendant indicated he had some mescaline for sale. The agent made the purchase from the defendant. The entire transaction was between the agent and the defendant, though the informant may have initially inquired if anyone had anything to sell. Approximately two months later, the agent made another purchase from the defendant.
The burden is upon a defendant claiming an exception to the non-disclosure rule to show why an exception should be invoked. Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967). A motion for disclosure or the evidence must show that the informant's testimony is relevant and material to the establishment of a defense the defendant has or proposes to present. Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla.App.1972).
Disclosure of a confidential informant depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Among the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether disclosure is required are: whether the informant was an active participant in the offense; possible significance of the informant's testimony; and whether it was necessary for the prosecutor to refer to the informant in the presentation of the case. Treverrow v. State, supra.
Defendant's motion for disclosure, filed and heard by the trial court immediately before the commencement of the trial, merely stated that without disclosure of the informant's identity, defendant could not prepare a defense. Not only was the motion untimely, but failed to refer to an existing or proposed defense to which the informant's testimony was relevant or material.
Though the informant went with the undercover agent to defendant's mobile home, participated in general conversation, and may have initially inquired if anyone had anything to sell, the agent and the defendant were the sole participants in the negotiations and the sale.
In his motion for disclosure and at trial, defendant failed to show any significance of the informant's testimony to the offense charged.
During the trial, the State did not refer to the informant. This was done by defendant on cross examination.
As was stated in Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495 (Fla.App.1959), we find nothing to warrant an exception to the general rule of non-disclosure. The informant's identity was not material in determining the guilt or innocence of defendant, who produced no testimony whatever in rebuttal of the State's case.
In response to defendant's demand for discovery, the State failed to disclose that a confidential informant was involved in this case. Hereafter, under similar circumstances, we suggest that the State indicate the existence of a confidential inform ant and let the trial court determine if his identity must be disclosed.
Affirmed.
McCORD, J., concurs.
Boyer, Acting C. J., concurs specially.