Opinion ID: 1669169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Alleged Drug Use

Text: Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude from evidence certain information from a confidential informer relating to alleged drug activities on the part of the decedent Danae Cook on the bases that [s]uch evidence is highly prejudicial, of low probative value and dubious reliability and would tend to confuse the issues and that the evidence involves hearsay. The State invoked its privilege not to reveal the identity of the informer. An in camera hearing was held, after which the trial judge overruled the State's motion, but also denied Hankins' request to have the informer's identity disclosed pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-510 (Reissue 1985) by ordering all present at the hearing on the motion not to reveal what went on at this hearing without an order of the court. Hankins claims that Danae Cook's alleged drug involvement was relevant to show that her death may have been drug related. Under § 27-510, the trial judge, after determining that the evidence of an informer may be relevant (necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence), holds an in camera hearing, such as the one had here, to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the informer can give the testimony. The trial judge need not require that the informer's identity be disclosed if it is determined that the informer would be unable to give the testimony. In overruling the State's motion, the trial judge implicitly determined that although the evidence relating to Danae Cook's drug involvement might be relevant, the informer's identity did not have to be disclosed, as she would be unable to give the testimony. At the hearing, Deputy County Sheriff Daniel McGovern testified that he had talked to a confidential informer concerning Danae Cook's possible involvement with drugs. The confidential informer had indicated in the first interview that she was present when a Jeffrey Opsatnich told a group of people that Danae Cook was killed because she owed the dealer a lot of money. However, McGovern testified that the informer said during a second interview that Opsatnich was her only source for this information, that Danae Cook had never told her about drug involvement, and that, in fact, she did not know Danae Cook personally. Hankins offered McGovern's police report, which recites: [T]he confidential source was also well acquainted with the deceased and verified that she distributed drugs. However, McGovern explained that well acquainted and verified were his words and that, in fact, the informer said only that she had seen Danae Cook before, went to school with her, and had no personal knowledge that Danae Cook was involved in drugs. Hankins' attorney himself stated at the hearing that when interviewed, Opsatnich said he never said anything about drugs or anything of that nature, and that he didn't have any idea what I was talking about.... On this state of the record, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the informer had no personal knowledge that Danae Cook was involved in drugs and therefore could not supply the testimony at trial, as it would be hearsay. Thus, there was no error in denying Hankins' request to have the informer identified.