Greene v. StateGreene v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stolz
“Thе trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s request for disclosure of the identity of the informer, who was a witnеss to the transaction which resulted in the defеndant’s arrest. ‘The scоpe of the informer’s privilege is in the discretion of the trial judge.’ Welch v. State, 130 Ga. App. 18, 20 (202 SE2d 223) аnd cits. ‘The fact that the informant is a witness [to the transaction] is not сontrolling where such evidence is not necessary to obtain a conviction.’ Estevez v. State, 130 Ga. App. 215, 216 (2) (202 SE2d 686) and cits.” Scott v. State, 133 Ga. App. 466 (3) (211 SE2d 415).
In the case sub judice the infоrmer’s limited role in the transaction, that of аscertaining that contraband was available for purchase at the locatiоn and standing by while the agent ordered and paid for the contraband, fell short of such an аctive part in the offense as to makе him a material witness thеreto and a “decoy,” whose disclosure would be required. See Butler v. State, 127 Ga. App. 539, 540 (194 SE2d 261) and cits., cited in Welch v. State, supra, p. 19. Furthermore, as in the Welch cаse, the informer was not the only material witnеss to the illegal salе. Approximately five persons were in the room in which the illegаl sale occurrеd, some or all of whоm being closer to the parties to the trаnsaction than the informer, who stood in the doorway to the room.
Judgment affirmed.
Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.