Court Opinion

ID: 9581959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:46.244674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:21.767750
License: Public Domain

ERICKSON, Justice,
concurring in the result:
I would reverse the suppression order because the identities of the informants have no bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence. In People v. Bueno, 646 P.2d 931 (Colo.1982), we recognized that each case must be decided on its own facts and said:
[T]he necessary foundation for the court’s exercise of discretion in ordering disclosure should be a showing of a reasonable basis in fact to believe the informant is a likely source of relevant and helpful evidence to the accused. See, e.g., People v. Langford, 191 Colo. 87, 550 P.2d 329 (1976); People v. Marquez, 190 Colo. 255, 546 P.2d 482 (1976). Generally, a showing by the accused that the informant witnessed or participated in the crime will meet this threshold foundation and will provide an adequate basis for a discretionary order of disclosure. See People v. Duran, 188 Colo. 420, 535 P.2d 505 (1975); Whaley v. People, 171 Colo. 287, 466 P.2d 927 (1970).... In every case, however an order of disclosure must be supported by the record and may not rest upon speculation or conjecture. People v. Langford, 191 Colo. 87, 550 P.2d 329 (1976).
Bueno, 646 P.2d at 936 (footnote omitted).
The defendant in this case failed to establish a foundation under Bueno for disclosure. Here, apart from describing the manner in which allegedly stolen merchandise was being stored and sold, the informants did nothing more than provide a code word for entry into the residence. None of the information had any relationship to the validity of the search warrant or the investigation by Officer Lucero that resulted in the charges that stolen clothes from Lemer’s were being sold at 1266 Elm-wood Lane. In my view, the informant issue in this case is a red herring that does not require a detailed analysis under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), and its progeny, and did not justify the trial court’s suppression of the fruits of a legitimate investigation.
When all the evidence discloses that the informant was an informant and nothing *1225more, the prosecution should not, as a general rule, be required to reveal his identity. People v. Langford, 191 Colo, at 90, 550 P.2d at 331. Accord People v. Bueno, 646 P.2d at 937.
People v. Vigil, 729 P.2d 360, 364 (Colo.1986).
Accordingly, I concur in the reversal of the suppression order.