Here, following his conviction and sentencing, Appellant’s attorney raised three issues in a timely post-sentence motion. The underlying facts are not so much important as is the procedural aspects of the case, namely the preservation of issues. The trial court, therefore, acted within its discretion to withhold the CI’s identity.Ĭomm.
Thus, if not otherwise obvious, Appellant failed to show any materiality to the disclosure of the CI’s identity.
Under these circumstances, Appellant’s position he was framed is wholly untenable. The CI was in possession of a black backpack which contained a sealed bag of approximately one pound of marijuana, and Appellant possessed $3,600 belonging to law enforcement. Appellant was arrested moments after the drug buy, at which time only Appellant and the CI were inside the car. In addition, the vehicle was under constant police surveillance, and no one other than Appellant and the CI approached or entered the automobile. The CI met with no other individual other than Appellant in Wendy’s, and officers had searched the CI and his vehicle to ensure he was not in possession of any contraband or U.S. The Superior Court really dismissed the grasping nature of this appeal by highlighting the following:Īppellant is correct that the only witness to the actual transaction in the CI’s vehicle was the CI however, multiple police officers observed Appellant and the informant in relatively close range during daylight hours in the moments leading up to and immediately after the transaction both inside the Wendy’s restaurant and in the area surrounding the vehicle in which the transaction occurred. Moreover, even though the confidential informant may have been the only witness to the actual hand-to-hand transaction, the police observed every other aspect of the transaction. The Court noted that Koonce wasn’t pursuing a “misidentification” defense here, and confidential informant’s trustworthiness wasn’t at issue since the officer on the case credibly established the informant to have provided valuable information that led to prior narcotics arrests. The Superior Court wasn’t buying this argument. Thus, because the confidential informant was the only eyewitness to the alleged drug transaction, only the disclosure of the confidential informant could advance the defense theory. Here, Koonce’s defense theory was one that the confidential informant “framed” him. that the information sought is material to the preparation of the defendant and that request is reasonable.” Release of the identity of the confidential information is within the trial court’s discretion. Generally speaking, “the Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source.” “In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity, a defendant must first establish. Really the issue on appeal that likely warranted publication concerned the confidential informant. Pre-trial he filed a motions to suppress evidence and to produce a confidential information used to build the case against him.
Koonce was convicted following a stipulated non-jury trial of possession with intent to deliver.
0 kommentar(er)
