State v. Orr
| Decision Date | 07 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7526SC649,7526SC649 |
| Citation | 220 S.E.2d 848,28 N.C.App. 317 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. William Michael ORR. |
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., T. Buie Costen, Raleigh, for the State.
Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Becton by James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant's first assignment of error relates to the trial court's refusal to require the State to identify the informant and issues that surround that refusal.
From the early stages of the trial, defendant attempted to secure disclosure of the informant's identity. The trial court refused to require the State to reveal the informant's name or address and would not allow questions seeking information as to his background or motivation for participation in the scheme.
The defendant persuasively argues that the informant in this case was not a mere tipster, but instead, was a material witness and a major participant. Additionally, he points out that the informer was the only one who might resolve conflicts between defendant's testimony and that of the officer. Defendant contends that in this case, disclosure is necessary to his defense of entrapment, and is required by authority of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639, and McLawhorn v. North Carolina, 4 Cir., 484 F.2d 1. We agree.
The government's privilege to withhold disclosure of an informer's identity must give way, where the disclosure of his identity, or of the contents of his communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause. Roviaro, supra.
The courts have placed great emphasis on determining whether an informant may be classified as a 'tipster' or a 'participant.'
These classifications seem to be based on the nature of the informers' activities. The 'tipster' is one who supplies law enforcement officers with leads and information while the 'participant' is one who takes some active part in the commission of the offense.
As stated in McLawhorn,
In the instant case, the evidence tends to show that the informant was a participant and helped to set up the commission of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Newkirk
...on material facts that the informant could clarify, McLawhorn v. State of North Carolina, 484 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.1973); State v. Orr, 28 N.C.App. 317, 220 S.E.2d 848 (1976). Several factors vitiating against disclosure are whether the defendant admits culpability, offers no defense on the meri......
-
State v. Mack, COA10–1020.
...on material facts that the informant could clarify, McLawhorn v. State of North Carolina, 484 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.1973); State v. Orr, 28 N.C.App. 317, 220 S.E.2d 848 (1976). Several factors vitiating against disclosure are whether the defendant admits culpability, offers no defense on the meri......
-
Heard v. Hooks
...of a confidential informant who actively participated in Petitioner's crime should have been disclosed); see also State v. Orr, 220 S.E.2d 848, 850 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976) (same). Additionally, Petitioner makes no mention of the NCCOA inconsistently applying federal law to reach its decision, ......
-
State v. Caldwell, 8014SC1216
...207 (1975); 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); State v. Orr, 28 N.C.App. 317, 220 S.E.2d 848 (1976). Defendants argue that the original affidavit presented to Magistrate Green was insufficient to establish probable cause......