Court Opinion

ID: 9599418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:18:35.726117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:13.148844
License: Public Domain

TANZER, J.,
concurring.
I concur entirely with the majority opinion and wish to add one additional comment.
The procedure which the trial court sought to employ was inappropriate and should be specifically disapproved. If the court is able to identify a specific act of possession to which the indictment refers, then it should be able to make its determination of the necessity for production of the informant as a witness pursuant to the principles set out in McCray v. Illinois, 386 US 300, 87 S Ct 1056, 18 L Ed 2d 62 (1967).
An ex parte closed hearing would not be to the interest of any participant in the litigation. It would *374often thwart the prosecution where the informant, as is often the case, is long gone. The hearing raises severe questions regarding the defendant’s right to confrontation. Further, such a hearing is not likely to improve the decision-making ability of a trial court. Therefore, such a procedure is ill-advised and should not be utilized.