Beasley v. State, 77-1509
| Decision Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1509,77-1509 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 934 |
| Parties | Jean C. BEASLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellant made a showing sufficient to require the court to conduct an in camera proceeding to determine whether the state should be required to disclose the name and address of an alleged confidential informant.
The appellant was charged with two counts of sale of marijuana and two counts of felony possession of marijuana. The appellant filed a motion seeking an order compelling the state to disclose the name and address of a confidential informant. The motion alleged that the informant was present at and arranged for each sale, that appellant had no other way of knowing the name of the informant, and that the testimony of the informant was necessary to the appellant's theory of entrapment. The state would not stipulate to the facts alleged in the motion and no testimony was presented. The motion was denied, and the appellant later entered a nolo contendere plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion.
At the outset, we need not consider the issue as it relates to the two convictions for possession because entrapment is not a defense to possession. English v. State, 301 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). With respect to the two sale convictions, the allegations of fact in the motion were very similar to those in Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), in which this court held that in response to a pretrial motion, the judge should have conducted an in camera hearing in order to decide whether the state would be required to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. However, this case differs from Munford in one significant particular. In that case, the state stipulated to the facts alleged in the motion, whereas here there was no such stipulation. We do not go so far as to hold that there must be a stipulation of facts or even the presentation of testimony, but we do feel that before the Munford requirement of an in camera hearing may be invoked, the defendant must at least swear to the facts upon which his motion is based. Otherwise, we can visualize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zamora
...concerning the informant's involvement which, if true, would support the possibility of a specific asserted defense. Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The defendant need not allege all the elements of the defense; it is sufficient that the defense is possible in light of t......
-
State v. Acosta
...concerning the informant's involvement which, if true, would support the possibility of a specific asserted defense. Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The defendant need not allege all the elements of the defense; it is sufficient that the defense is possible in light of t......
-
Marrero v. State, 84-1138
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. dismissed, 312 So.2d 747 (Fla.1975); State v. Smail, 337 So.2d 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), see discussion infra n. 2. The prosecution against the defendant was proceeding on the basis that trafficking was establis......
-
Sastre v. State, s. 85-1476
...to reveal the name and address of the confidential informant. State v. Acosta, 439 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The State did argue on closing argument that the defendant, Sastre, did not produce any corroborating witness (Obie) and this......