State v. Borrego

11 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fernandez

    141 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The State objects to the disclosure of the information ordered by the trial court based primarily on its claim that the information is confidential and privileged. Generally speaking, the district courts of appeal have recognized an objection by the State to court-ordered discovery in a criminal case based on a claim of privilege as a basis upon which the State may seek review by certiorari of a nonfinal order. See State v. Burgos, 985 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (order requiring the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant); State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); State v. Roberson, 884 So.2d 976, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (order requiring the production of the mental health records of the alleged victim); State v. Famiglietti, 817 So.2d 901, 902–03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (en banc) (same); State v. Diamond, 553 So.2d 1185, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (en banc) (order requiring the alleged minor victim of a sexual battery to submit to a physical examination by a medical expert selected by the defendant). Here, the unwarranted disclosure of information claimed to be privileged in accordance with the trial court's pretrial order would leave the State without an effective remedy and cause irreparable harm.

  2. State v. Fernandez

    Case No. 2D13-2998 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 21, 2014)

    The State objects to the disclosure of the information ordered by the trial court based primarily on its claim that the information is confidential and privileged. Generally speaking, the district courts of appeal have recognized an objection by the State to court-ordered discovery in a criminal case based on a claim of privilege as a basis upon which the State may seek review by certiorari of a nonfinal order. See State v. Burgos, 985 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (order requiring the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant); State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); State v. Roberson, 884 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (order requiring the production of the mental health records of the alleged victim); State v. Famiglietti, 817 So. 2d 901, 902-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (en banc) (same); State v. Diamond, 553 So. 2d 1185, 1192 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1988) (en banc) (order requiring the alleged minor victim of a sexual battery to submit to a physical examination by a medical expert selected by the defendant). Here, the unwarranted disclosure of information claimed to be privileged in accordance with the trial court's pretrial order would leave the State without an effective remedy and cause irreparable harm.

  3. State v. Carter

    980 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

    The State of Florida filed this petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a circuit court order granting Carter's motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Carter correctly concedes that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering disclosure of the CI's identity, because he did not meet the dictates of State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we grant the State's petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling disclosure.

  4. State v. Williams

    No. 3D23-208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 6, 2023)

    A non-final order granting a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant "is reviewable by certiorari, as it presents the possibility of irreparable harm." State v. Rivas, 25 So.3d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing State v. Ayala, 713 So.2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. Roberts, 686 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). See also State v.Burgos, 985 So.2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quashing order requiring the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant); State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same). "Rulings as to the necessity of providing the names and addresses of witnesses for the defendant to have a fair trial are rulings which must of necessity rest upon the broad discretion of the trial court." State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

  5. State v. Stephens

    288 So. 3d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    And because Stephens failed to show that the disclosure of the operational plan was material to his defense, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering its disclosure. See State v. Borrego, 970 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("Because Borrego has not shown that disclosure was necessary for the preparation of his defense or that his constitutional rights were infringed upon, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering the State to disclose the CI's identity. Accordingly, we grant the State's petition and quash the order compelling disclosure.").

  6. State v. Jean

    270 So. 3d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

    PER CURIAM.We treat this State appeal from an order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it. See, e.g., State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant was reviewable by way of certiorari where there was no adequate remedy on appeal); State v. Devoid, 706 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (same). The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the disclosure without first conducting the in-camera hearing the law requires.

  7. Wesby v. State

    230 So. 3d 939 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    "When asserting that disclosure of information is necessary to establish a specific defense, ‘[t]he defendant must make a preliminary showing of the colorability of the defense prior to disclosure.’ " State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hernandez, 546 So.2d 761, 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ). This court has previously noted that a movant asserting a misidentification defense involving a CI must provide "[s]worn allegations supporting a misidentification defense for which the CI's testimony would be helpful."

  8. State v. Carter

    29 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that a trial court need not conduct an in camera review when a defendant does not make an initial showing of necessity for the confidential information to support a specific defense

    The State has the privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant, and the defendant has the burden to show why disclosure should be compelled. State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The State's privilege of nondisclosure may be overcome if the State plans to call the informant as a witness at trial or when disclosure is "`essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue.'"

  9. Thomas v. State

    28 So. 3d 240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    State v. Mashke, 577 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). When a defendant succeeds in meeting the "initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."

  10. Bailey v. State

    994 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that a "trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the [confidential] informant's testimony and the State's interest in nondisclosure" when a "defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense"

    Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1967). In State v. Borrego, 970 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), we explained the burden placed on a defendant seeking to discover the identity of a confidential informant: The State's privilege of nondisclosure may be overcome when an informant's identity or the content of the informant's communication would be relevant and helpful to a specific defense or when disclosure is "essential to a fair determination of the cause at issue."