People v. Ruiz

[1487]

Opinion

SCOTLAND, J.

After denial of his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant (Cl) who witnessed the transaction, defendant was convicted of selling methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.) On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying the motion.

Because the Cl did not testify at the in camera hearing on defendant’s motion to disclose the informant’s identity, we shall reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further in camera proceedings. As we shall explain, the fact the Cl witnessed the alleged methamphetamine transaction does not necessarily compel disclosure of the Cl’s identity. Evidence adduced at an in camera hearing may establish there is no reasonable possibility the Cl could give evidence which might result in defendant’s exoneration. In order for the trial court to make this determination, the Cl’s in camera testimony is essential because he was an eyewitness to the alleged transaction. The materiality of the Cl’s possible testimony cannot be determined by a peace officer’s characterization of the Cl’s knowledge of the incident and the Cl’s reliability and credibility.

Discussion

I

At the preliminary hearing, Deputy Sheriff Bruce Ramos testified the Cl told him of a subject wishing to “deal off” some methamphetamine. The Cl arranged for Ramos to purchase an eighth of a gram of methamphetamine from defendant. About 9:30 that night, Ramos went to a residence in Marysville, where he was met at the door by the Cl. After the Cl introduced Ramos to defendant, the Cl and defendant went into a bedroom for about 30 seconds, returned together, and defendant handed Ramos a baggie of methamphetamine. Ramos paid defendant for the methamphetamine. Ramos, defendant and the Cl stood together at the time of the transaction. Defendant was held to answer, and the case was certified to the superior court.

Defendant then filed a motion for disclosure of the Cl’s identity. Defendant contended the Cl could give material testimony because he arranged and participated in the alleged drug transaction and his testimony was crucial to impeach Ramos. In their opposing memorandum of points and authorities, the People conceded the Cl was a percipient witness who “might offer a version of events supporting the defendant’s plea of innocence.” The court concluded defendant made a sufficient showing to justify an in camera hearing. After an in camera hearing, the motion to disclose the identity of the Cl was denied.