Commonwealth v. D.M., 100 N.E.3d 347

Boston police, relying on a confidential informant, arrested and searched juvenile D.M. on firearm-related charges; D.M. later indicted as a youthful offender.
Before a suppression hearing, D.M. moved for disclosure of the informant’s identity and related information.
The Commonwealth asserted the confidential informant privilege, arguing disclosure would endanger the informant and the informant was not a percipient witness.
The Juvenile Court judge found the privilege properly invoked but concluded D.M. had shown the informant’s identity was sufficiently relevant to require disclosure and ordered it produced.
The Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition in county court; the single justice denied relief and the Commonwealth appealed to this Court.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Juvenile's Argument	Held
Whether the Commonwealth properly invoked the confidential informant privilege	Privilege was valid because disclosure would endanger informant and impede law enforcement	Informant’s identity was necessary to challenge probable cause and suppression issues	Privilege was properly invoked on the record facts (threat to informant shown)
Whether the trial judge erred by ordering disclosure for a pretrial suppression hearing	Disclosure at suppression requires a higher showing; nondisclosure is readily tolerated pretrial	Disclosure was relevant and helpful to defense at suppression and therefore required	Judge erred by failing to apply the more demanding standard for disclosure at a pretrial suppression hearing rather than the trial stage; disclosure order vacated for reconsideration under correct framework
Whether the single justice abused discretion in declining to exercise G. L. c. 211, § 3 superintendence to review interlocutory disclosure orders	Exceptional circumstances here warranted review because the single justice misapplied the legal standard	Single justice properly denied extraordinary review (implicit)	Single justice abused discretion in refusing review; this Court exercised supervisory power and set aside the single justice’s judgment

Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 472 Mass. 827 (recognizes informant privilege and two-stage analysis)
Commonwealth v. Dias, 451 Mass. 463 (describes relevance standard for informant disclosure)
Commonwealth v. Amral, 407 Mass. 511 (distinguishes pretrial suppression vs. trial disclosure standards)
Commonwealth v. Lugo, 406 Mass. 565 (nondisclosure more readily tolerated at pretrial hearings)
Commonwealth v. Kelsey, 464 Mass. 315 (defendant’s burden to articulate materiality to overcome privilege)
Commonwealth v. Madigan, 449 Mass. 702 (explains differing tolerances for nondisclosure pretrial vs. trial)
Commonwealth v. Snyder, 413 Mass. 521 (mere possibility of helpfulness at preliminary stage insufficient to require disclosure)
Commonwealth v. Forlizzi, 473 Mass. 1017 (routine disclosure orders ordinarily not warrant extraordinary supervisory review)