Opinion ID: 1285680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Restrictions on Examination of Affiant

Text: Defendant also complains of restrictions on the questioning of Officer Tagomori at the hearing on the motions to suppress and to disclose the informer's identity. The record below clearly indicates that the circuit judge imposed these restrictions because he feared that answers to some questions might result in the indirect disclosure of the informer's identity. [2] In State v. Texeira, 50 Haw. 138, 433 P.2d 593 (1967), we followed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967), and held that neither the federal nor state constitutions dictate disclosure of an informer's identity where the sole purpose is to challenge the finding of probable cause. A trial court may, in its discretion, require disclosure if it believes that the officer's testimony is inaccurate or untruthful. Without deciding at this time how far one may go in an effort to impeach an affidavit for a search warrant, it follows from our holding in Texeria, supra, that it is clearly within a circuit court's discretion to disallow questions which may indirectly disclose an informer's identity. We have considered defendant's final contention that knowing and unlawful possession was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the record below and conclude that it is without merit. Affirmed.