Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

296 So. 2d 62

King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-06-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1975

1 state decisions

Relies on 262 So. 2d 11 - Doe v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-06-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions, entered pursuant to jury verdicts, for the crimes of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and possession of less than five grams of marijuana.

¶2His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not compelling the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who introduced the State’s primary witness to the appellant. Wé have carefully examined the briefs submitted by the parties and the record on appeal. It appearing therefrom that appellant failed-to raise this issue in his motion for new trial, failed to assign this issue as error in his Assignments of Error and failed to establish either by a motion for disclosure or by the evidence that the testimony of the confidential informant would be of such essential relevancy or materiality as to justify or require disclosure of his identity, the judgments and sentences appealed herein are affirmed. Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972).

¶3Affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.
/296/so2d/62 · .json · Public domain