Opinion ID: 1782493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in overruling swann's motion to disclose the identity of the informant?

Text: ¶ 32. Swann contends that, due to the nature of the case (murder), and the detailed account of the facts provided by the informant, including knowledge of the location of the well, the informant's identity should have been revealed to allow the defense an opportunity to investigate his knowledge. Disclosure of an informant's identity shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose his/her identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the accused or unless the informant was or depicts himself/herself as an eyewitness to the event or events constituting the charge against the defendant. URCCC 9.04(B)(2). ¶ 33. This Court has ruled on this issue, finding that if the informant neither participated in the criminal activity nor witnessed the crime, then his name should not be disclosed. Ray v. State, 503 So.2d 222, 224 (Miss.1986). According to Sheriff Bryant, the informant in this case was not involved in the crime, and nothing in the record suggests that the informant was a participant or eyewitness to the crime. Swann sets forth no compelling arguments or reasons why the informant's identity should be revealed. Furthermore, there are important public policy considerations in protecting the identity of a confidential informant who does not participate or witness the actual crime. See United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18, 19 (10th Cir.1990). This issue lacks merit; and therefore, this Court finds no error.