Court Opinion

ID: 9534297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:26.766299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:10.698851
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*574GOODWIN, J.
In a petition for rehearing, the defendant has pointed out an error in our opinion. We treated an assignment of error which challenged the refusal of the trial court to require the state to produce an informer at the time of trial as if the motion had been concerned only with the admissibility of evidence. The record reveals that the defendant’s motion was made on the asserted grounds “that this is essential for the conduct of the defense of this case * *
While the defendant did not, apparently, make the argument in the trial court, he argues in this court that it was necessary to call the informer to the stand in order to try to prove, by cross-examination, that the informer had “planted” the narcotics in the defendant’s room.
The defendant correctly states the abstract proposition that if an informer is a necessary -witness to establish a fact helpful to the defendant on the issue of guilt or innocence it is reversible error to refuse a timely motion to produce the informer. There is nothing in the record below, except the defendant’s own assertion, to suggest that the informer in the ease at bar could have assisted the defendant in proving any fact going to the issue of guilt or innocence.
In Roviaro v. United States, 353 US 53, 62, 77 S Ct 623, 1 L Ed 2d 639 (1957), the court said:
“We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s *575right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”
We hold that in order to predicate error upon the refusal of a court to order the state to produce (and thereby to end the usefulness of) an 'informer, the party seeking such an order should make some preliminary showing that the Informer’s testimony would have some bearing upon the issue of guilt or innocence. See People v. Durazo, 52 Cal 2d 354, 340 P2d 594, 76 ALR2d 257 (1959). The argument that the informer in the case at bar may have “planted’” the narcotics is an argument the defendant is free to make before the jury, whether or not the informer takes the witness stand. The likelihood that an in-, former would take the stand and admit that he “planted” the state’s evidence in order “to frame” the defendant is not, however, so great that we can say that the state had the duty to sacrifice the informer in this case. It must be remembered that in this case the issue was possession, and the state was able to put on its entire case without reference to the informer. See. State v. Penney, 242 Or 470, 410 P2d 226 (1966). Without some preliminary showing that the defendant’s argument is based on more than imagination, the proposition does not provide a reason for requiring the state to disclose the informer’s identity.
Rehearing denied.