From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 6, 1973
285 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 73-992.

November 6, 1973.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Criminal Division, Gene Williams, J.

Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State's Atty., for petitioner.

Phillip Hubbart, Public Defender and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.


By petition for certiorari, the State seeks review of an order requiring the disclosure of the name of a confidential informant, contending that the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of the law in requiring the disclosure of same when the only evidence before the trial judge [upon the motion to compel disclosure] demonstrated that the confidential informant did not introduce the defendant to the law enforcement officer and did not witness the alleged criminal transaction.

State v. Andres, 148 Fla. 742, 5 So.2d 7; State v. Coyle, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 671; State v. Crews, Fla.App. 1970, 241 So.2d 754; State v. Smith, Fla.App. 1971, 254 So.2d 402, quashed in part Fla. 1972, 260 So.2d 489.

Therefore, it appears that the trial judge committed a departure from the essential requirements of the law and erred in this ruling, under the authority of this court's opinion in Doe v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 11. See also: City of Miami v. Jones, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 775.

The order compelling disclosure be and the same is hereby quashed.


Summaries of

State v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 6, 1973
285 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

State v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT E. BROWN, RESPONDENT

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 6, 1973

Citations

285 So. 2d 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)