111 So. 3d 1196
Miss.2013Background
- Confidential informant-derived information led to a search warrant for a Greenville residence; officers entered the home and found drugs and cash on various persons.
- Hannah fled during the entry and was apprehended after attempting to retreat through a window; a bag of cocaine was found beneath the window, with marijuana, a digital scale, and cash ($4,670 on Hannah, $225 on Williams) located in the home.
- Hannah and Williams were charged jointly with possession of cocaine with intent; Williams was severed for separate trial; Hannah sought continuances due to counsel and witness issues.
- Hannah moved in limine to compel disclosure of the confidential informant; the circuit court denied the motion, holding the informant was not a trial witness and was protected by state law.
- Trial proceeded with Hannah representing himself after a waiver of counsel; Williams could not be located for testimony; Hannah was convicted of possession with intent and sentenced to 60 years; the conviction and sentence were later challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion denying disclosure of the confidential informant. | Hannah argues the informant identity should be disclosed under Roviaro and case law. | State contends informant not a witness and link to crime too tenuous to require disclosure. | No abuse; informant not an eyewitness and link to crime too tenuous. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion denying continuance. | Hannah asserts right to compulsory process and to call an indispensable witness. | State argues prior continuances and lack of practicable means to secure Williams justify denial. | Reversed; denial of continuance violated Hannah's right to compulsory process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informant privilege yields when disclosure is essential to defense)
- Pace v. State, 407 So.2d 530 (Miss. 1981) (informant identity not absolute rule; may be disclosed under certain circumstances)
- Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1983) (informant not required where not participant or eyewitness)
- Carry v. State, 710 So.2d 853 (Miss. 1998) (no disclosure where informant not participant or eyewitness)
- Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418 (Miss. 1992) (informant’s data used for probable cause; no disclosure required)
- Amett v. State, 532 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1988) (no error withholding informant’s identity where not participant/eyewitness)
- Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832 (Miss. 1983) (informant not required to be disclosed when not eyewitness)
- Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731 (Miss. 1992) (defendant must be allowed to call witnesses even if they may invoke Fifth Amendment)
- Slater v. State, 731 So.2d 1115 (Miss. 1999) (right to call witnesses who may invoke Fifth Amendment)
- Stewart v. State, 355 So.2d 94 (Miss. 1978) (reversible error to prevent incidental witness from testifying despite potential Fifth Amendment)
- Coleman v. State, 388 So.2d 157 (Miss. 1980) (witnesses with Fifth Amendment concerns must be allowed to testify)
- Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921 (Miss. 2003) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Harden v. State, 59 So.3d 594 (Miss. 2011) (continuance denial reviewed for manifest injustice)