Baker v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-213,62-213 |
| Citation | 150 So.2d 729 |
| Parties | Samuel Lee BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Taylor & Bergstresser, Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appeals a judgment and conviction of operating a gambling house contrary to the statutes of this State.
The affidavit which supported the search warrant in this case was issued upon certain assertions made by one R. Brown, pursuant to the provisions of § 933.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 1 By appropriate proceedings, the defendant moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained thereunder, averring that there was in fact no such person and further moved the State Attorney, by an appropriate motion, for a bill of particulars seeking a full disclosure of information relative to the said R. Brown. The several motions were denied by the trial court and the appellant was tried and convicted upon evidence obtained as a result of the aforesaid search warrant. 2
There is a fundamental principle of judicial process that one accused of a crime is entitled to be confronted by his accuser. See: U.S.Const. Amend. VI; Fla.Const., Declaration of Rights, § 11, F.S.A. The failure of the trial judge to require the State of disclose such information as it had relative to R. Brown, the individual who signed the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued, vitiated all evidence obtained thereunder. The conviction and sentence will be reversed upon the established principle that illegally obtained evidence by virtue of a defective search warrant may not be used to secure a conviction. See Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217; Hogan v. Carlton, 112 Fla. 442, 150 So. 604; 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 180. Even though the judge who issued the search warrant may have been justified in issuing the warrant upon the affidavit, at the time it was called to the attention of the trial court [both in the motion to quash and suppress and in the motion for a bill of particulars], an issue was made as to the 'credibility' of the affiant who set in motion the search and subsequent criminal proceedings. It was then incumbent upon the trial judge to require the State to reveal such facts as it had relative to the said R. Brown. See: Byers v. State, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 382. The State urges that it was protected in failing to disclose any information relative to the affiant; that the trial court was well within its discretion in refusing to compel disclosure because it was averred that the said R. Brown was a confidential informant. See: Chancon v. State, Fla.1957, 102 So.2d 578; Harrington v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 495; Garcia v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 709; State v. hardy, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 344. It is true that it has been held in this State that the prosecution may not always be required to reveal the name of a confidential informant, but this rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCray v. State of Illinois, 159
...see People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 209 N.E.2d 694. Cf. Stelloh v. Liban, 21 Wis.2d 119, 124 N.W.2d 101; Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729 (Fla.App.); State v. Boles, 246 N.C. 83, 97 S.E.2d 7 In the present case California has filed a helpful amicus brief, advising us that th......
-
State v. Zamora
...where the informant executes the affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), or where the confidential informant is a defense witness at trial, and the defendant seeks to cross examine a police off......
-
State v. Simmons
...affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 (citing Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)). The State's reliance on McCray is also misplaced. In McCray, the Second District Court of Appeal merely held that the t......
-
State v. Diaz
...identity and active involvement in the charged illegal drug transaction), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 465 (Fla.1976); Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (disclosure required where informant executes affidavit upon which search warrant is issued for search of defendant's ...