Opinion ID: 2585200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial court's failure to order disclosure of identity of confidential informant

Text: Two search warrants were issued for the search of defendant's cabin in Butler's Camp, one on January 20, 1989, requested by Detective Dwayne Hardenbrook of the Modesto Police Department and seeking evidence related to the possession and sale of illegal drugs, the other on January 24, 1989, requested by Detective Gary Deckard of the Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department and seeking evidence related to the murder of Kenneth Stewart. Both warrants were based in part on information from the same confidential informant. Prior to trial, the defense moved for, and the prosecution opposed, disclosure of the informant's identity. (See Evid.Code, §§ 1041, 1042, subd. (d).) On July 13, 1989, at defendant's request, Superior Court Judge Frank S. Pierson ordered that the assigned trial judge hold an in camera hearing to resolve the motion. On August 24, 1989, the trial court held the required in camera hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the informant had no evidence that would be in any way exculpatory to defendant and denied the motion. Defendant contends the court erred. As defendant correctly argues, the prosecution must disclose the name of an informant who is a material witness in a criminal case or suffer dismissal of the charges against the defendant. ( Eleazer v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 847, 851, 83 Cal.Rptr. 586, 464 P.2d 42.) An informant is a material witness if there appears, from the evidence presented, a reasonable possibility that he or she could give evidence on the issue of guilt that might exonerate the defendant. ( People v. Borunda (1974) 11 Cal.3d 523, 527, 113 Cal.Rptr. 825, 522 P.2d 1.) The defendant bears the burden of adducing `some evidence` on this score. ( People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1246, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251, quoting People v. Hardeman (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 823, 828, 187 Cal. Rptr. 296.) The parties join in requesting this court to review the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the foregoing standard, and we have done so. Based on that review, we reject defendant's supposition that the in camera examination of the informant was conclusionary and superficial. To the contrary, the record demonstrates, based on a sufficiently searching inquiry, that the informant could not have provided any evidence that, to a reasonable possibility, might have exonerated defendant.