OPINION
Appellant, Roger Walak, was convicted of two violations of the Drug, Devicе and Cosmetic Act. Post-verdict motions were denied and sentence imposed. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed.
Commonwealth v. Walak,
228 Super. 404,
Appellant’s conviсtions resulted from two alleged sales of marijuana to agents of the Bureau of Drug Control of the Pennsylvania Department of Justice. In each instance a mеeting between the agents and appéllant was *459 arranged by a paid informer of the Bureau of Drug Control, one George Sam. Sam also witnessed each of thе two sales.
Approximately five months prior to trial, on April 3, 1973, appellant filеd a request for a bill of particulars to which the prosecution respondеd on April 10, 1973. About three weeks prior to trial, on August 29, 1973, appellant filed a second request, also entitled a “Request for a Bill of Particulars” asking specifically for the names and addresses of “any agents or participants to the alleged criminal transaction known by the state.” The prosecution did not respond to this request. Appellant renewed his request at the beginning of his trial, moving that the prosecution be required to furnish the whereabouts of the witness Sam. Apparently, at this time, the defense knew that the name of the informer was George Sam, but did not know his whereabouts. The appellant’s motion was denied.
The prosecution did not call Sam аs a witness during appellant’s trial. Appellant was convicted solely on the tеstimony of the agents who allegedly purchased the marijuana from the appellant in the presence of Sam.
Appellant contends that the trial cоurt erred in refusing his request that the prosecution be ordered to disclose the whereabouts of the informer eyewitness, George Sam. We agree. There is no disрute that Sam was a material eyewitness to the crimes charged. Under these circumstances, appellant was entitled to the information sought.
Commonwealth v. Carter,
The prosеcution argues that, prior to trial, it had no obligation to furnish the information requested about the eyewitness. We are, however, not concerned in this appeal with that issue. Although appellant, prior to trial, sought from the prosecution infоrmation about the
*460
eyewitness, appellant made no pre-trial application to the court for relief when the prosecution failed to furnish the information, nor did the appellant at the beginning of his trial make any request for reliеf other than a request that the prosecution be required to furnish the information аt that time.
See Roviaro v. United States, 353
U.S. 53, 65, n. 15,
Although the prosecution’s brief does not argue that the error was harmless, that issue is suggested by рortions of the prosecution’s brief. The issue arises because during cross-exаmination, a prosecution witness testified that if he wanted to contact George Sam, he would attempt to do so at Sam’s mother’s house in Herminie. Even if we assumе that this “lead” was an adequate response to appellant’s inquiry at the beginning of the trial, we cannot say whether or not the lack of this information affeсted appellant’s trial strategy prior to the disclosure of the information. Disсlosure at the beginning of the trial might have affected that portion of the .trial already completed. Forcing the accused to trial without information may hаve handicapped defense counsel in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in the presentation of the defense. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
Judgment of sentence reversed and a new trial granted.