Opinion ID: 2100738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Confidential Informant's Identity

Text: Kentucky Rule of Evidence 508(a) gives the Commonwealth a privilege to refuse to disclose the identity of confidential informants. Exceptions to the general rule of privilege are set forth in KRE 508(c). Such exceptions include (1) voluntary disclosure by the holder of the privilege, (2) the informer is a witness for the state, and/or (3) the informer's testimony is relevant to the issues of the case. Appellant is arguing an exception to the KRE 508 privilege based on her contention the informant's testimony is highly relevant in proving her innocence to the charge of Possession with Intent to Sell. KRE 508 reflects the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), which indicates that a proper balance regarding nondisclosure must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crimes charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony and other relevant factors. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 987 S.W.2d 302, 304 (Ky.1998). Where the disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way. Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60-61, 77 S.Ct. at 628. Yet, embedded within KRE 508(c)(2) is the following language: the court shall give the public entity an opportunity to make an in camera showing in support of the claim of privilege. (Emphasis added). Thus, by the very words of the rule as well as the caselaw it supports, the court is to allow for an in camera showing, i.e. hearing, of the parties' claims regarding the privilege. In this case, the court simply overruled Appellant's motions without a formal hearing and finding. Making a blanket ruling for the sole purpose of consistency with prior case rulings does not allow either the Appellant, or the Commonwealth, the proper opportunity to prove their case regarding this issue of informant disclosure or privilege. Therefore, we find the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting an in camera hearing regarding the motion. Our caselaw provides that a defendant who requests disclosure of the identity of an informant must first make a proper showing that an exception applies. See Schooley v. Commonwealth, 627 S.W.2d 576 (Ky.1982). Once Appellant has made such a showing, the burden would shift to the Commonwealth to overcome this inference. See United States v. McManus, 560 F.2d 747 (6th Cir.1977). Factors a court would normally consider include whether the informant's life would be in danger were his identity revealed or if he is needed for other undercover work, etc. We believe a proper determination cannot be made regarding the KRE 508 privilege without the trial court conducting an in camera hearing. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for the limited purpose of holding a KRE 508 in camera hearing consistent with this opinion. Appellant must establish that it appears that an informer may be able to give relevant testimony and once she has successfully met this burden, which we believe the circumstances of this case will allow (as she and her co-defendant are both arguing the cocaine was in the constructive possession of the other), the burden would then shift to the Commonwealth to establish why the informant's identity should remain concealed. Only after such a hearing could the court's denial of Appellant's motion be proper and we then could properly review this matter. Thus, we now abate this appeal pending the findings and conclusions from the KRE 508 hearing. The hearing order shall issue within 90 days from the entry of this Opinion. If the trial court rules the informant's identity shall be revealed, it shall enter an order granting a new trial pursuant to RCr 10.02 from which the Appellee may appeal. If the trial court determines Appellant could not successfully establish an exception to the KRE 508 privilege, then it shall make findings of fact in support of this conclusion in its order, which shall then be appealable by the Appellant herein. Any appeal taken by either party from an adverse decision of the Fayette Circuit Court shall be consolidated with this appeal. Further, briefing on any subsequent appeal shall be limited to ten pages by each side and, like the hearing on remand, shall be limited to only those issues addressed in this Opinion. Finally, the Fayette Circuit Court shall notify this Court of its final disposition of this matter within ten (10) days of the entry of its final order. All concur.