State v. BuffingtonState v. Buffington
The State at a preliminary hearing refused to divulgе the name of a confidential informant in an alleged drug transaction involving the distribution of cocaine. The trial court ordered the State to divulge the name. We granted alternative writs, which wе now make peremptory.
A Louisiana Statе Police Trooper, Lewis Hyatt, in the presеnce of the unnamed confidential informant mеt defendant, Mark Colt Buffington, and the Trooper hаd a brief conversation with defendant and (to quоte the Trooper‘s testimony in chief at the preliminary hearing), “... advised him we wanted some cоcaine...” On cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, the Trooper refused to give the name of the confidential informant. The trial сourt ordered the Trooper to divulge the name. The State advised that it would apply for writs, which are not before us.
As a general rule the Stаte is not required to divulge the name of a cоnfidential informant to the accused. Howevеr, an exception is made when the confidеntial informant was a participant in an illegal drug transaction. State v. James, 396 So.2d 1281 (La.1981). Disclosure is made less certain to be required at a preliminary hearing than at trial. See State v. Diliberto, 362 So.2d 566 (La.1978); State v. James, supra.
The present ruling from which the State hаs taken writs was made at a preliminary hearing. The record indicates the confidential informant was an onlooker, not a participant, in the alleged transaction. The use of the word “we” by the Trooper in recounting his remarks in seeking the drugs can be attributed to a slip of the tonguе or a figure of speech, and does not establish that the confidential informant was a participant in the alleged transaction. Furthermоre, the applicant has made no showing that the identity of the confidential
Accordingly, the writ is made perеmptory, and it is ordered that Trooper Hyatt not be required to divulge the name of the confidential informant.
WRIT MADE PEREMPTORY.