Opinion ID: 1920736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant asserts trial court should have granted his oral application to require the State to disclose the informer's identity.

Text: The application was made during testimony taken prior to trial on a motion to suppress defendant's statements to the undercover officer who made the buy. Defendant's written motion to suppress asserted the statements were obtained without defendant being advised of his constitutional rights and as a result of entrapment. The undercover officer's testimony referred to the informer who introduced him to defendant. Defense counsel, in then making his motion for disclosure, told the court the fact there was an informer    comes as a complete surprise to me, since by client has never advised me of that, that there was another party along here   . Our general rules relating to disclosure have been fully set out in State v. Lamar, 210 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1973); State v. Battle, 199 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1972), and State v. Denato, 173 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1970), and need not be repeated here. Relating directly to the case before us is the following from State v. Lamar, supra, 210 N.W.2d at 603: The burden is inceptionally upon defendant to show cause for such disclosure. And in this regard the mere assertion of entrapment as a defense to a criminal charge will not suffice. Defendant had no cause for disclosure if he knew the informant. There is a strong indication in the record he did: informant introduced the officer to him. Granted defense counsel did not know the informant's identity, yet under the circumstances shown here, there should have been some showing defendant was not acquainted with him. Defendant himself could have taken the stand for that purpose in this pretrial proceeding. His testimony could not have been used against him in trial on the issue of his guilt. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394, 88 S.Ct. 967, 976, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1259 (1968); United States v. Kahan, 479 F.2d 290, 295 (2 Cir. 1973); United States v. Harrison, 461 F.2d 1127, 1132 (5 Cir. 1972); 21 Am. Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 367, pp. 390-91. Where the identity of the informant is known to the defendant, it is harmless error, if error at all, for the court to overrule a motion for disclosure of informant's identity. Sorrentino v. United States, 163 F.2d 627, 629 (9 Cir. 1947); People v. Williams, 255 Cal.App.2d 653, 660, 63 Cal.Rptr. 501, 505 (1967); see United States v. Escobedo, 430 F.2d 603, 609 (7 Cir. 1970); United States v. Conforti, 200 F.2d 365, 369 (7 Cir. 1952). We hold this defendant did not show cause for disclosure and trial court rightly rejected the oral application.