State v. Baker

Full title: State of Maine, Plaintiff, v. Karon Baker, Defendant.

Court: Superior Court of Maine

Date published: Jun 26, 2018

CDCR-18-539 (Me. Super. Jun. 26, 2018)

Opinion

CDCR-18-539

06-26-2018

State of Maine, Plaintiff, v. Karon Baker, Defendant.

VALERIE STANFILL, JUDGE.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISCLOSE

VALERIE STANFILL, JUDGE.

This matter came before the court on Defendant's motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant listed in the search warrant as "CI#2". That individual will not be used as a witness for the state at trial and is not alleged to be present during the events that form the basis for the charges. Rather, the individual's significance is limited to the search warrant.

This case is similar to State v Boutilier, 2011 ME 17, in which the Defendant also moved for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant referred to in a search warrant.^[1] As the Law Court stated,

[1] In this case, however, Defendant has not properly moved for a Franks hearing, making the need for disclosure of the confidential informant even more attenuated than in Boutilier.

A review of the record reveals that Boutilier has not presented adequate evidence to support his allegation that the confidential informant's statement served to enhance the charges against him or that the informant would have information relevant to the case at trial. Since the State specified that it relied only on the evidence found in the search of Boutilier's property in bringing the charges against him and did not plan to call the informant at trial, Boutilier failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the informant may possess relevant knowledge that could assist in his defense at trial.

Boutilier also has not met the requirement of Chase I that in order to succeed in requiring disclosure of an informant's identity for the purposes of a Franks hearing, he must raise a legitimate question or doubt as to the affiant's, not the informant's, credibility. Chase 1, 439 A.2d at 531. Boutilier's arguments present no more than a mere guess that additional details about the informant might support his defense. Thus, the court did not err in denying Boutilier's motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

State v Boutilier, 2011 ME 17, ¶¶ 13-14. The same reasoning is applicable here, and the motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant is denied.

This Order Denying Motion to Disclose may he incorporated on the docket of the case by reference.

Entered on the docket 10-27-18