People v. Sewell

California Court of Appeal Jan 29, 1970 No. Crim. 16585Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to disclose the identity of an informer because the defendant failed to make an adequate showing that the informer was a material witness or that disclosure was necessary for his defense. Furthermore, the court affirmed that there is no requirement to disclose an informer's identity when the request is solely to challenge the probable cause supporting a search warrant valid on its face.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to compel disclosure of the identity of an informer used to obtain a search warrant.
Whether the defendant made a sufficient showing that the informer was a material witness whose testimony might result in the defendant's exoneration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“California law, however, does not require disclosure of the identity of an informer who has supplied information constituting the probable cause which is the basis for a search warrant”

“We conclude that the trial court properly denied this aspect of the motion by reason of appellant’s failure to make an adequate showing in support of it.”

“Demonstration of that reasonable possibility requires more than speculation on the part of the defendant.”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Appellant appeals from a conviction of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11530.5. We conclude that the ground of appeal is not supported by the record and affirm the conviction.

Facts

Edward Noriega, an agent of the State Bureau of Narcotics, obtained a search warrant from the Pomona Municipal Court. The affidavit in support of the petition for search warrant states that a reliable informer had observed marijuana at the premises to be searched prior to and on July 3, 1967. The warrant was issued on July 14. That same day Noriega and several officers of the Pomona Police Department executed the warrant. Within the premises described in the warrant, the officers found appellant and approximately 4 pounds of marijuana, most of it packaged for sale. They also found a “Countess II scale” of a type commonly used to measure marijuana for the purpose of selling it. After having been warned of his rights, appellant stated that he was a part owner of the marijuana. He also said that he and other college students would pool their money and one of them would go “south of the border” to obtain narcotics.

Prior to trial, appellant moved for discovery of the identity of the informer. The prosecution asserted the privilege against disclosure. The motion was denied. Appellant waived a jury trial and submitted the matter upon the transcript of the preliminary hearing without further evidence. Having been found guilty, he perfected this appeal.

Issue on Appeal

The sole ground of appeal is the contention that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to compel disclosure of the name of the informer.

[1038]

Obligation to Disclose Identity of Informer

Appellant’s counsel asserted the following reasons in support of his motion to compel disclosure of the identity of the informer whose information led to the issuance of the search warrant. “In the first place, of course, it is extremely self-evident that we want him to cross-examine him or we want him for. purposes of impeachment, either impeaching him, the informer, or using the informer to impeach . . . other witnesses, . . .” We concur with the trial court in its ruling that appellant did not make a sufficient showing to require disclosure.

People v. Sewell

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief