Ricketts v. State
| Decision Date | 27 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1104,73--1104 |
| Citation | 305 So.2d 296 |
| Parties | John RICKETTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward M. Kay, of Varon, Stahl & Kay, Hollywood, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant takes this appeal from his conviction on two counts of aiding and assisting in the conducting of a lottery. Four points are urged as grounds for reversal. Point One is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion and requests for disclosure of the confidential informant.
The State's case consisted primarily of the testimony of James Bates, a beverage agent who was able to infiltrate a lottery operation through the use of a confidential informant who had become unhappy with the organization. This informant was identified only as 'Clarence'.
According to the testimony of Bates, he and Clarence made pickups of lottery slips from appellant on two different dates. Another agent, Wise, examined them and identified them as lottery slips. Bates and Clarence then took the slips to their usual drop-off place. Wise testified that the slips had to be left in circulation in order for the investigation to continue.
The trial of appellant was scheduled to begin August 28, 1973. A few days before that defense counsel learned that 'Clarence', the informer, was a Clarence Harvard and attempted to subpoena him but was unsuccessful. The informant was never produced. On the day of trial defense counsel informed the court concerning Clarence Harvard and that he considered Harvard to be an essential witness who could present exculpatory evidence. The court was requested to issue an instanter subpoena. The State moved for a continuance. This motion was resisted by the defense because of its fear that the State's motive was that it wanted to talk to Harvard before he was brought into court. In addition, defense had learned that Harvard was leaving town. The court granted the State's motion for continuance, and trial was reset for August 31, 1973. Harvard was served with a subpoena to appear at the State Attorney's office on August 29th, and in court on August 31st. Harvard left for the army on August 29th and did not appear at either place. The defense on several occasions during the trial, moved for disclosure of the name of the informant. The trial court finally granted the motion. Thereafter the State announced that it would not reveal the informant's name. The defense then moved for a dismissal. The trial judge thereupon rescinded his previous ruling and allowed the trial to continue.
The law in regard to the disclosure of a confidential informant is thoroughly discussed in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hassberger v. State
...v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla.App.2nd 1965); and Ricketts v. State, 305 So.2d 296 (Fla.App.4th 1974) (in which an informer had to be identified when he was an active participant and the only witness in a 'to amplify or contrad......
-
Grimes v. State, 74--863
...but the sole And only participant (other than the accused) and the only witness to the transaction. Ricketts v. State, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 305 So.2d 296 opinion filed December 27, 1974; Roviaro, supra; Hurse, supra; Day, supra; Toombs, supra; United States v. Ferguson, 162 U.S.......
-
Boone v. State
...So.2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981); Riggins v. State, 374 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Ricketts v. State, 305 So.2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Hawkins v. State, 312 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cited by the trial court in the order denying appellant's motion ......
-
Chittum v. State, AN-235
...Cf. Gaines v. Hess, 662 F.2d 1364 (10th Cir.1981) (informant's existence was revealed by officer's trial testimony); Ricketts v. State, 305 So.2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (defense unsuccessfully attempted pretrial to subpoena Harvard, the informer; court continued trial; Harvard failed to re......