State v. Nielsen
391 P.3d 166
Utah2016Background
- A confidential informant told police that M.G. was selling ecstasy; officers stopped M.G.’s car and found ecstasy; Kyler Nielsen was a passenger and charged with possession.
- Nielsen moved to compel disclosure of the informant’s identity; the State invoked Utah Rule of Evidence 505 to refuse disclosure.
- Rule 505 allows the State to withhold an informer’s identity but requires dismissal of charges if there is a reasonable probability the informer can give testimony necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.
- The district court planned an in camera interview but the informant declined to participate due to alleged threats; the court then applied a three-factor balancing test (from State v. Forshee/State v. Nielsen) and denied dismissal.
- Nielsen was convicted; on appeal the Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court applied the correct legal standard under rule 505 and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard under Utah R. Evid. 505 for disclosure/dismissal when the State asserts the informer privilege | Nielsen: Rule 505’s plain language requires only inquiry whether the informer can give testimony necessary to a fair determination; if so, dismissal is mandated unless the State waives privilege | State: Courts should apply Forshee’s three-factor balancing test (defendant’s need, safety hazards, public interest in informant flow) when deciding dismissal under Rule 505 | The court held the district court applied the wrong test; Rule 505’s plain language controls and requires only assessment of whether the informer can provide testimony necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Forshee, 611 P.2d 1222 (Utah 1980) (announced a three-factor balancing test for informant disclosure)
- State v. Nielsen, 727 P.2d 188 (Utah 1986) (applied Forshee balancing test)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (federal standard: informant privilege yields where disclosure is relevant and essential to a fair determination)
- State v. Steinly, 345 P.3d 1182 (Utah 2015) (standard of review: de novo review of legal determinations)