State v. Hodges
Decision Date | 17 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 802SC774,802SC774 |
Citation | 51 N.C.App. 229,275 S.E.2d 533 |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Randolph HODGES. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Rufus F. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Hirsch, Raleigh, for the State.
James R. Vosburgh, Washington, for defendant-appellant.
The principal question raised by this appeal is whether the defendant's Due Process Right was violated by the prosecution's refusal to disclose the identity of an informant who was present during and participated in the offenses charged.
At the outset we note that we are not concerned with probable cause for an arrest or probable cause for a search warrant under G.S. 15A-978. See State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, 211 S.E.2d 207 (1975). Instead, we are involved with guilt or innocence, the right of the defendant to know the identity of a participating informant in advance of trial so that the defendant may properly prepare his defense. In the question we are guided by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), where the petitioner had been charged with the sale of heroin to "John Doe," and the government refused to disclose on the grounds that since John Doe was an informer it was the prosecution's privilege to withhold his identity. In allowing relief on the petition for habeas corpus the court stated:
Id. at 59, 62, 77 S.Ct. at 627, 628-29, 1 L.Ed.2d at 644, 646.
The Roviaro court found that the circumstances demonstrated that John Doe's possible testimony was highly relevant and might have been helpful to the defense, concluding that the informer's privilege is not absolute, and that disclosure is required when the informer participates in the alleged crime and is thus a material witness and might have been helpful to the defense. Though Roviaro was decided in 1957, the decision is often recognized and cited in both federal and state court decisions to support the principle of law that disclosure is required where the informant is an actual participant. See United States v. Raddatz, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, 211 S.E.2d 207 (1975); State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E.2d 481 (1973); State v. Orr, 28 N.C.App. 317, 220 S.E.2d 848 (1976); State v. Parks, 28 N.C.App. 20, 220 S.E.2d 382 (1975), cert. denied, 289 N.C. 301, 222 S.E.2d 701 (1976).
We must determine if the particular circumstances of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Simmons
...to dismiss. Citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957) and our recent case, State v. Hodges, 51 N.C.App. 229, 275 S.E.2d 533 (1981), the defendant contends that the court's denial of his motions deprived him of his constitutional rights to present a def......
-
State v. Tate
...this information only minutes before trial. In support of their argument defendants rely upon the recent decision in State v. Hodges, 51 N.C.App. 229, 275 S.E.2d 533 (1981). In Hodges we held that the defendant's right to due process was violated when the State refused to reveal the identit......
-
State v. Roseboro
...an informer participates in the alleged crime, the State must disclose the identity of the informer. See, e.g., State v. Hodges, 51 N.C.App. 229, 275 S.E.2d 533 (1981). In the instant case, the information provided by the confidential informer had no connection with the crimes with which de......
-
State v. Grainger
...court decisions similarly hold that disclosure is required only where the informant is an actual participant. See State v. Hodges, 51 N.C.App. 229, 275 S.E.2d 533 (1981); State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E.2d 481 The facts here are distinguishable from the cases in line with Roviaro th......