State v. Davila
| Decision Date | 21 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-00450,89-00450 |
| Citation | 570 So.2d 1035 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2846 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony DAVILA, Luis Fernandez and Sharon Willis, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Hanlon, Tampa, for appellee Davila.
Anthony F. Gonzalez, P.A., and Howard J. Shifke, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Fernandez.
Judge C. Luckey, Jr., Public Defender, and Linda J. McKinley, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee Willis.
The state appeals the trial court's dismissals 1 of its informations against Anthony Davila, Luis Fernandez, and Sharon Willis for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. The dismissals resulted when the state failed to produce pursuant to the court's order confidential informants who had information against another informant, since disclosed, who was involved in the drug sting operation that gave rise to the present charges.
The facts provided us in the record are limited. It appears that a confidential informant, Anthony Carrera, began working with undercover Hillsborough County officers on a drug sting operation after he was arrested on criminal charges. Carrera advised the officers that he could arrange a purchase of two kilos of cocaine from Fernandez. A detective then accompanied Carrera to Fernandez's house. Officers monitoring the house observed Willis leave the house and drive around the neighborhood; they believed she was acting as a lookout. Willis then drove to a place where a Suzuki automobile occupied by two Latin males was parked. Willis spoke with the Suzuki's occupants. The state maintained below that the Suzuki was used to transport the two kilos of cocaine to the house. Once the officers were certain the cocaine was in the house, they moved in and secured the house detaining Fernandez and Davila. Afterward, the officers procured a search warrant which was served a few hours later. During the wait for the warrant, Willis returned to the house and was detained with the others. In their search of the house, the police found over two kilos of cocaine and arrested Davila, Fernandez, and Willis, charging all three with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine.
In pretrial proceedings after the defense filed a motion to disclose, the state voluntarily produced Carrera for deposition. Fernandez's counsel represented below that Carrera said in deposition that he (Carrera) did not use cocaine and did not deal in cocaine. According to Fernandez's attorney, Officer Davis, in deposition, contradicted Carrera's statements regarding Carrera's involvement in drugs and stated that Carrera did use cocaine and dealt in cocaine and that Carrera admitted that cocaine seized from Carrera's home belonged to Carrera.
Carrera had been subjected to police searches of his home and seizures of criminal evidence therein on two separate occasions, once before and once after the arrests of the defendants in this case. The informant providing probable cause for the first search of Carrera's home was designated by the number 88-56. The informant which furnished probable cause for the second search warrant for Carrera and his home was identified by the designation 88-79.
The defense sought by separate motions disclosure of confidential informants 88-56 and 88-79 (CIs), alleging that disclosure was necessary for three reasons. First, they claimed the CIs were needed to confront the state witnesses at trial and, specifically, to impeach Carrera's credibility as to his use of drugs and his dealings in drugs, and to detail the crimes charged against Carrera. Second, they claimed to need the CIs to present their defense that Carrera had set them up in order to protect a supplier of Carrera's in Miami. Third, the defense sought to introduce the CIs' testimony to test Carrera's memory of Carrera's drug activities and the effect of Carrera's drug use on his ability to remember those activities.
After a hearing on the defense motions to disclose, the trial court ruled that the state was to produce the CIs for an in camera inspection. The judge conducted an in camera voir dire of CI 88-56 2 and thereafter ordered 88-56 be disclosed because 88-56's testimony, "if found to be true would indicate that the state's witness in this case, the confidential informant [Carrera] quite possibly perjured himself in a sworn deposition." When the state refused to disclose the identity of CI 88-56, the trial judge dismissed the charges against all three defendants.
In discussing the standards applicable to the disclosure of confidential informants, the third district court in State v. Villar, 554 So.2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) noted:
As a general rule, the state has the privilege of not disclosing the identity of a confidential informant; however, there are exceptions to this rule, e.g., where the identity of the informer is essential to the defense. State v. Acosta, 439 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Elkins v. State, 388 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(c)(2). The general rule and its exception have been set forth in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); United States v. Toombs, 497 F.2d 88 (5th Cir.1974), and Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla.1967). The burden is on the defendant to show that he warrants an exception to the general rule of nondisclosure. See State v. Davis, 308 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). If informers' names were subject to being readily revealed, the use of confidential informants, an enormously important aid to law enforcement, would be almost cut off. For this reason, a privilege is recognized in respect to disclosure of the identity of an informer who has given information about supposed crimes to a prosecuting or investigating officer or to someone for the purpose of its being relayed to such an officer.
Id. at 576-77 (citation omitted).
We agree with the state's argument in the trial court and in this appeal that the reasons listed by the defense and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burgos
...must not only allege a legally cognizable defense, but he or she must also support the defense with sworn evidence. State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant's identit......
-
Thomas v. State
...must not only allege a legally cognizable defense, but he or she must also support the defense with sworn evidence. State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant's identit......
-
Bailey v. State
... ... Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); see Harris v. State, 939 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review dismissed, 946 So.2d 1070 (Fla.2006). The defendant must not only allege a legally cognizable defense, but he or she must also support the defense with sworn evidence. State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d ... 994 So.2d 1258 ... DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity was necessary to a legally recognized defense). "A bare allegation that the defendant cannot prepare his case ... ...
-
State v. Borrego
...must not only allege a legally cognizable defense, but he or she must also support the defense with sworn evidence. State v. Davila, 570 So.2d 1035, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the defendant failed to establish by sworn proof that disclosure of the confidential informant's identit......