Court Opinion

ID: 9675734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:04:06.113377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:38.185696
License: Public Domain

On Motion For Rehearing
PER CURIAM:
In asserting the principal opinion “would effectively destroy the privilege of the confidential informer in drug cases” and “can only lead to stultification of our law enforcement system by effectively removing one of the state’s most valuable enforcement tools, the confidential informant,” the dissent misinterprets the language of the principal opinion and overstates its intended effect.
The principal opinion does not presume to declare new law as to the informer’s privilege. It represents at most an application of the Roviaro balancing test, adopted by this Court in State v. Edwards, 317 S.W.2d 441 (Mo. banc 1958), to a rather unique fact situation. The informer’s privilege remains intact as reflecting the strong public policy of this state, and should be honored except in those cases where there exists “the possibility of any real and substantial prejudice to the defendant, in the bona fide preparation of his case, from a failure to divulge the name.” Edwards, 317 S.W.2d at 449 (Eager, J., concurring and speaking for a plurality).
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
BARDGETT, C. J., and DONNELLY, SEILER and WELLIVER, JJ., concur.
RENDLEN and MORGAN, JJ., and FINCH, Senior Judge, dissent.