Per Curiam.
Appellant contends that the appellee's order was contrary to law because there was no showing that the disclosure of the informant would be helpful and beneficial to the defense.
The record reveals that a hearing was held by the appellee prior to trial in response to the criminal defendant's motion to require the disclosure of the name and address of the state's confidential informant. After hearing testimony from police officers and the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.