Court Opinion

ID: 9602397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:54:12.595177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:03.275572
License: Public Domain

Wright, C.J.
(dissenting) — I fully agree with the view of Mr. Justice Hicks relative to the suggestion for an in camera session, which could serve no useful purpose. What seems to be overlooked is the virtual certainty that defendant actually knew at all times the identity of the informer, and, therefore, the demand by defendant for disclosure of the identity of the informer was no more than a trial tactic — either in a studied effort to introduce error into the record or for delay.
The facts would seem to speak for themselves. There were four persons in the alley when the sale of the con*155trolled substance and the arrest took place. One of the four was appellant, another was Morris, who was a defendant in another case involving the same facts, and another was the undercover agent who immediately arrested both appellant and Morris. That leaves only the informer. He had had a substantial part in arranging the meeting where the sale took place. He was clearly well known to both appellant and to Morris. They both knew he was present in the alley and they knew the officer permitted him to leave. It is absolutely beyond the realm of credulity to even claim that appellant did not know the identity of the informer.
The claim of appellant is wholly without merit. I would affirm.