Looking for caselaw.

CI makes a couple of buys and PD gets search warrant. Warrant is executed and a large amount of drugs are found. CI is NOT at the scene of warrant execution.

Defense attorney has filed a motion for CI name and for the recordings of the establishment buys. I do not believe he is entitled to them. (CI is still working with PD and also Feds.) Any caselaw on the subject would be appreciated.

The informer's potential testimony must significantly aid the defendant and mere conjecture or supposition about possible relevancy is insufficient. Bodin v. State, 807 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The defendant is required to make a plausible showing of how the informer's information may be important. Id. (citing United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 871, 102 S. Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982)). When the CI isn't at the crime scene at the time of defendant's arrest, and when the CI wasn't an accomplice to the crime for which defendant was arrested, a trial court generally won't abuse its discretion under Rule 508 by denying the defendant's disclosure motion. Id.

See also, Long v. State, 137 S.W.3d 726, 733 (Tex. App.---Waco 2004, pet. ref'd); Johnson v. State, No. 12-09-00094-CR, slip op. 3-4 (Tex. App.---Tyler 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Parks v. State, No. 02-04-00412-CR (Tex. App.---Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

An exception to the above arrises if the defendant challenges the issuance of a search warrant based on the CI's information. If that is the basis of the disclosure motion (rather than what impact CI's testimony will have on determining defendant's guilt for the charged offense), the above-referenced cases provide some guidance on that additional issue.

[This message was edited by APorter on 02-02-12 at .]

Also check out Harris v. State. Brand new case out of the 2nd COA.
http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=23058

Another example of an appellate court upholding the trial court�s denial of the Defendant�s request for the identity of a confidential informant when that informant was simply used to obtain a search warrant, and not a witness to the actual crime for which the Defendant is being prosecuted.

This week the 8th Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing a whether a trial court erroneously denied a motion to disclose the CI's identity. The appellate court held the trial court did not err because the defendant presented no evidence to support the belief that the CI's testimony might be material to the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Aumock v. State, No. 08-10-00093-CR, slip op. at 6-7 (Tex. App.--- El Paso Feb. 8, 2012, no pet. h.).