State v. Tisnado
| Decision Date | 22 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1881,1881 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Augustine TISNADO, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary Nelson, Atty. Gen., Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert K. Corbin, Maricopa County Atty., by Larry V. Cronin, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.
Raineri, Raineri & Raineri, by Joseph C. Raineri, Phoenix, for appellant.
Defendant, Augustine Tisnado, appeals from a conviction of illegal possession of narcotic drugs and marijuana, with prior convictions.
Late in the evening of December 26, 1966, State Narcotics Agent James Moody received a call from a confidential informant, Anthony Audia, to the effect that the defendant had called Audia from the airport telling him that he was in possession of narcotics and that he wanted Audia to pick him up. The informant then proceeded to the airport to pick up the defendant, after which they went together to a number of stores where they purchased match boxes, tobacco in cans, and other items with which to prepare the narcotics for sale and distribution. They then proceeded to defendant's apartment where they began to clean the marijuana and package it for sale.
At this time Officer Moody and three other State Narcotics agents arrived at defendant's apartment and moved in to execute a search warrant which they had previously obtained. Upon entering the apartment, the officers found defendant in the bedroom. Laid out on the bed was a large amount of marijuana and various packing paraphernalia. A total of 306 grams of marijuana was found in the house. Found outside of the defendant's apartment was a toy box which contained a total of 863 grams of marijuana. A search of the person of the defendant revealed a package containing 5.41 grams of heroin. Defendant's pre-trial motion to compel disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant was denied; however, defendant, unaware that Audia was the informant, called him as a defense witness and it became apparent during his testimony that he was the informant.
First, defendant asserts as reversible error the trial court's refusal to grant his pre-trial motion to compel the identity of the confidential informant. In passing upon the merits of the question there raised we do not wish to imply that under our prior decisions the defendant has a right to discover the State's evidence in advance of trial.
In making this assignment of error the defendant fails to recognize that the chief purpose of the privilege of non-disclosure of a confidential informant is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcement.
The leading case that discusses the privilege of non-disclosure of a confidential informant is Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639. See also, State v. Kelly, 99 Ariz. 136, 407 P.2d 95. In Roviaro it is stated in substance that the privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity encourages them to perform that obligation. The court further stated that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable; that the problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information, against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders non-disclosure erroneous must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible significance of the informer's testimony and other relevant factors.
In order to determine whether fairness to defendant dictates the disclosure of the informant's identity, one must ask: What purpose would be served by the disclosure? Defendant argues that since Audia was an eye witness to the crime charged, and in fact a participant himself, his disclosure as the informant was essential to his defense. We cannot agree. This is not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tisnado v. U.S.
...preceded Tisnado's trial. After his conviction, Tisnado took a direct appeal, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. Arizona v. Tisnado, 105 Ariz. 23, 458 P.2d 957 (1969). A reading of the opinion reveals that the Arizona Supreme Court did not then rule on Tisnado's fourth amendment claims......
-
State v. Rose
...same character, because the reoccurrence of an act controverts a claim that it was done by accident or mistake. See State v. Tisnado, 105 Ariz. 23, 458 P.2d 957 (1969); State v. Boozer, 80 Ariz. 8, 291 P.2d 786 (1955); Hightower v. State, 62 Ariz. 351, 158 P.2d 156 (1945). Intent, however, ......
-
State v. Petralia, 2609
...949 (where other transaction evidence was admitted on issue of entrapment).' 89 Ariz. at 80, 358 P.2d at 180. See also State v. Tisnado, 105 Ariz. 23, 458 P.2d 957 (1969); State v. Turner, 104 Ariz. 469, 455 P.2d 443 In Vallejos, supra, we also answered the contention in the defendant's rep......
-
State v. Tuell
...interest in effective law enforcement. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). State v. Tisnado, 105 Ariz. 23, 458 P.2d 957 (1969). Rule 15.4(b)(2). R.Crim.Proc. 17 A.R.S. Where, however, the disclosure of an informant's identity is relevant and helpful to......