Court Opinion

ID: 9541760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:28:26.461001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:37.260244
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J. :
Appellant could have been given prior to trial the information the Commonwealth had on the whereabouts of the paid informant who was an eyewitness to the crime with which he was charged. Footnote 6 of the majority’s opinion is incorrect. In Commonwealth v. Pritchett, 225 Pa. Superior Ct. 401, 312 A. 2d 434 (1973), this court held that Rule 310 does not bar pretrial disclosure of the name of an informant who was an eyewitness to a crime.
At the latest, appellant should have been given the information at the start of trial. The error that arose *412from the Commonwealth’s refusal to turn over the information at least by then cannot be characterized as harmless. The agent’s answer was so qualified and general that to describe it as a “lead” is somewhat generous; in any event, it hardly “revealed the probable whereabouts” of the informant. In addition, considering the court’s earlier rulings regarding disclosure of the informant’s whereabouts, counsel had little reason to suppose that a request for a continuance would have been granted.