Commonwealth v. Ellison, 213 A.3d 312

Appellant Kevin C. Ellison was charged after three controlled purchases (Jan 20, Jan 31, Feb 23, 2017) in which a confidential informant (CI) bought crack cocaine from him; purchases were supervised by agents and the CI was searched and given prerecorded buy money.
Video from a device on the CI captured the third transaction; agents observed Appellant meet the CI and the CI subsequently produced bags testing positive for crack cocaine on each occasion.
Appellant moved pretrial to compel disclosure of the CI's identity; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing, and the case proceeded to jury trial.
A jury convicted Appellant of three counts each of delivery of a controlled substance and criminal use of a communication facility; he was sentenced to an aggregate 3–6 years’ incarceration plus six years’ probation.
On appeal, Appellant argued (1) the trial court erred in refusing to compel disclosure of the CI’s identity, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
1. Motion to compel CI identity	CI identity was material and necessary because CI was the only eyewitness to the transactions	Appellant failed to show materiality or that the information wasn’t obtainable elsewhere; multiple agents observed the events and video corroborated at least one buy	Disclosure not required; Appellant failed the threshold showing of materiality and reasonableness, so no balancing was required
2. Sufficiency of evidence for deliveries	Controlled‑buy setup was imperfect and only circumstantial; no direct proof Appellant handed drugs or accepted money	Agents observed meetings, followed CI, retrieved prerecorded money and drugs each time; video and forensic testing corroborated deliveries	Evidence (direct and circumstantial) was sufficient to support three delivery convictions
3. Sufficiency for criminal use of communication facility	(Raised on appeal)	Issue not preserved in Rule 1925(b); appellant’s statement was boilerplate and lacked element‑specific grounds	Claim waived for failure to specify elements in Rule 1925(b) statement

Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 681 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1996) (sets out threshold materiality/reasonableness standard before disclosure and factors for balancing informant privilege)
Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (recognizes Commonwealth’s qualified privilege to withhold an informant’s identity)
Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 317 (Pa. 2010) (describes balancing test and limits on disclosure of informant identity)
Commonwealth v. Belenky, 777 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 2001) (defendant must demonstrate reasonable possibility the informant could provide exculpatory evidence)
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (defines delivery under controlled‑substances statute and explains constructive/actual transfer)
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 133 A.3d 759 (Pa. Super. 2016) (states sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)