'" Estevez v. State, 130 Ga. App. 215, 216 (2) ( 202 S.E.2d 686). See also, Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18, 19 (3) ( 202 S.E.2d 223). 2.
In a case of this sort, whether the identity of the informant must be revealed rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18, 20 ( 202 S.E.2d 223). For a thorough discussion of the principles involved, see Taylor v. State, 136 Ga. App. 31 ( 220 S.E.2d 49).
Crosby held that the identity of a decoy was not privileged and must be revealed, and in Hodges v. State, 98 Ga. App. 97, 105 ( 104 S.E.2d 704) (1958), the identity of an informer was held to be absolutely privileged. These absolute rules had generally been followed ( Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730 (4) ( 182 S.E.2d 779) (1971); Morgan v. State, 211 Ga. 172, 177 ( 84 S.E.2d 365) (1954); Stanford v. State, 134 Ga. App. 61 (1) ( 213 S.E.2d 519) (1975); Thomas v. State, 134 Ga. App. 18 (1) ( 213 S.E.2d 129) (1975); Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18, 19 (3) ( 202 S.E.2d 223) (1973); Morrison v. State, 129 Ga. App. 558 (5) ( 200 S.E.2d 286) (1973); Butler v. State, 127 Ga. App. 539 (2) ( 194 S.E.2d 261) (1972); Staggers v. State, 101 Ga. App. 463, 465 ( 114 S.E.2d 142) (1960); Smallwood v. State, 95 Ga. App. 766 (1) ( 98 S.E.2d 602) (1957); Roddenberry v. State, 90 Ga. App. 66 ( 82 S.E.2d 40) (1954)), until the United States Supreme Court held, in a case involving a decoy, that the due process concept of fundamental fairness required that the public interest in protecting the flow of information to law enforcement officials be balanced against the right of the accused to a full and fair opportunity to defend himself. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 ( 77 S.C. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639) (1956).
"'" (Emphasis supplied.) Statiras v. State, 170 Ga. App. 739, 740 ( 318 S.E.2d 156); accord Carver v. State, 175 Ga. App. 599 (1) ( 333 S.E.2d 697); Gilmore v. State, 168 Ga. App. 76, 77 ( 308 S.E.2d 232) (also opining that "[w]here the disclosure of the informant's identity would at best serve only to furnish possible impeachment of the agent's testimony, disclosure is not appropriate considering the overriding rule of nondisclosure," and that "[u]nder the facts before the trial court, there were no discovery rights in the tipster mandated by Brady v. Maryland [supra] and thus the disclosure rested within the sound discretion of the trial court"); Carter v. State, 165 Ga. App. 427 ( 301 S.E.2d 658); Taylor v. State, 136 Ga. App. 31 (2) ( 220 S.E.2d 49); See Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 (3) ( 202 S.E.2d 223). We find that the facts of this case distinguish it from this precedent.
"Where the competent testimony does not exclude the possibility of the defendant's presence with respect to the time and place of the offense for which he was indicted, there is no error in not charging alibi." Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18, 21 (5) ( 202 S.E.2d 223) (1973). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, C. J., and Deen, P. J., concur.
Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132 ( 287 S.E.2d 195) (1982); Farmer v. State, 228 Ga. 225 ( 184 S.E.2d 647) (1971). See also Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 ( 202 S.E.2d 223) (1973). 3. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the sheriff to read the statement of the alleged accomplice, over defense counsel's objection that it was inadmissible hearsay, and in denying the defense counsel's request to examine the written statement (which was not introduced as evidence by the state).
The sufficiency of the evidence introduced before the grand jury is a question for determination by the grand jury, and not by the court." Summers v. State, 63 Ga. App. 445 ( 11 S.E.2d 409) (1940); Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 ( 202 S.E.2d 223) (1973). This court cannot properly consider the first prong of this enumeration, and the second is moot. The enumeration is without merit.
We find no error under these circumstances, as defendant was well aware at trial of the identity of the person he now complains he was prevented from discovering. See Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 (3) ( 202 S.E.2d 223). 2.
]" Bryant v. State, 224 Ga. 235 ( 161 S.E.2d 312). See also Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 (1) ( 202 S.E.2d 223). Douglas v. State, 132 Ga. App. 694, 696 (concurring opinion) ( 209 S.E.2d 114). Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.
In the absence of a request by the defendant, the trial judge did not err, under the facts of this case, in failing to charge the jury on the defense of alibi. See Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18 (5) ( 202 S.E.2d 223) (1973); Parrott v. State, 133 Ga. App. 931 (3) ( 213 S.E.2d 77) (1975). 2.