Com. v. Powell, R., 656 WDA 2016

Appellant Raemar Powell was charged after a DANET undercover operation with PWID, possession of heroin, possession of paraphernalia, and criminal use of a communication facility; convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to 3 years probation (plus intermediate punishment on one count).
The undercover detective (Grondwalski) testified he arranged and conducted a hand-to-hand buy with Powell at a Burger King, having identified Powell from a mugshot shown before the transaction; a confidential informant (CI) arranged the buy and remained in the undercover vehicle.
Powell moved pretrial to compel disclosure of the CI’s identity, claiming inconsistencies between the criminal complaint and preliminary hearing testimony about who conducted the hand-to-hand buy.
At the pretrial hearing Detective Grondwalski denied that the CI performed the buy or that he promised to produce the CI at trial; Powell’s witness (his mother) testified the detective had said the CI made the buy and the CI would be produced.
The trial court denied the motion to disclose the CI’s identity, finding Powell failed to show materiality and emphasizing the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting CI safety; Powell did not renew the motion at trial and appealed solely on the CI-disclosure issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant Powell)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying disclosure of the CI’s identity	Disclosure required because of inconsistencies between criminal complaint / preliminary hearing testimony and detective’s trial testimony — needed to impeach detective and show misidentification	Powell made no showing at the pretrial hearing that the CI’s identity was material or that CI had exculpatory info; qualified privilege protects CI identity absent materiality	Denial affirmed: Powell failed to establish materiality, so court did not abuse discretion in withholding CI identity

Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2010) (describes balancing test between informer privilege and defendant’s right to fair trial)
In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (limits review of pretrial disclosure rulings to pretrial hearing record)
Commonwealth v. Watson, 69 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for informant-disclosure rulings is abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. King, 932 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requirements for disclosure when informant was not witness to incident)
Commonwealth v. Hritz, 663 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant must lay foundation that informant has material, non-duplicative information)
Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (informant safety is a controlling factor in disclosure decisions)