Court Opinion

ID: 9729741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:47:53.614746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.924503
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
It is doctrinal that when the accused shows that the prosecution’s unidentified paid informant was an eyewitness to or participant in the actus reus constituting the crime charged or a defense thereto, the accused has satisfied his initial burden in the process of seeking disclosure of such informant’s identity of showing that such identity would be relevant and helpful in preparing his defense. Roviaro v. United States, (1957) 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639; Glover v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 121, 251 N.E.2d 814; McCulley v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 135, 272 N.E.2d 613; Suarez v. United States, (5th Cir. 1978) 582 F.2d 1007; Lopez-Hernandez v. United States, (9th Cir. 1968) 394 F.2d 820; Gilmore v. United States, (5th Cir. 1958) 256 F.2d 565. Here the informant accompanied the undercover officers to appellant’s residence and entered with them. She was present when *712the sale to the undercover officers was made. Under these facts the request of the accused for the prosecution to identity this informant placed a duty upon the prosecution to justify non-disclosure. Upon hearing such justification the court should have applied the Rovario balancing test, and thereby determined whether disclosure should be made by the prosecution. Since the trial court did not apply that test at all, the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.