STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Johnny RAMBAHAL, Appellant.
No. A07-512.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
June 19, 2008.
751 N.W.2d 84
In order to demonstrate probable cause, McGlothlin only had to show that it was possible that State Farm is liable for her injuries—in other words, that she “might” not be a resident of the Steinmetz home. Gudbrandsen, 205 Minn. at 610, 287 N.W. at 118. McGlothlin produced enough evidence to satisfy this low threshold. Although there is evidence that she lived under the same roof as the Steinmetzes for a long period of time, length of stay alone is not determinative of the residency question, and the duration of McGlothlin‘s stay does not compel the conclusion that the Steinmetzes would have considered the arrangement in contracting for insurance. See Viktora, 318 N.W.2d at 706. Moreover, the seemingly overarching concern in the residency cases is whether the relationship between the parties constitutes a “social unit which is something more than a group of individuals who occasionally spend time together in the same place.” Lott, 541 N.W.2d at 307. McGlothlin produced enough evidence to support the reasonable conclusion that her relationship with the Steinmetzes was not that of a social unit. We therefore hold that she demonstrated probable cause and that the district court should have granted her motion. Because we hold that McGlothlin demonstrated probable cause that she might not be a resident of the Steinmetz home, we need not reach the question of whether an adult can be a resident of two households for purposes of insurance.
Affirmed.
MAGNUSON, C.J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Thomas Earl Lockhart, Special Staff Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, MN, Attorney General—Criminal, St. Paul, MN, for Respondent.
OPINION
GILDEA, Justice.
Appellant Johnny Rambahal is charged with violating
This action arises from a Burnsville police officer‘s encounter with Rambahal on January 1, 2007. The complaint alleges that the officer encountered two males walking down the middle of a county road in Dakota County shortly before 1:00 a.m. on New Year‘s Day. When the officer got out of her vehicle and approached the men, they verbally identified themselves as Rambahal and Donta Holley. Based on her prior dealings with the two men, the officer radioed for additional officers to come to the scene. The officer also learned from dispatch that there was an
After placing Rambahal in the back of her squad car, the officer conducted a search of the immediate area incident to his arrest. The officer found a loaded .357-caliber pistol “on top of the newly fallen snow next to where Rambahal was standing when [the officer] initially had contact with him.” The record does not indicate where Holley was standing in relation to Rambahal or to where the pistol was found. The pistol contained three live rounds, and three rounds had been fired. The ammunition in the pistol was the same caliber as was found on Rambahal.
Rambahal and Holley both waived their Miranda rights. Rambahal told the officer that the pistol did not belong to him and that he did not know who owned the pistol. Holley told the officer that Rambahal carried the pistol for protection and that upon seeing the officer, Rambahal dropped the pistol on the ground.
On January 3, 2007, Rambahal was charged with possessing a firearm in violation of
In the course of discovery and about 2 weeks before trial, the State disclosed to defense counsel two police reports pertaining to a string of aggravated robberies in Burnsville.1 The police reports state that a Burnsville police officer spoke with a citizen informant on December 29, 2006, regarding an aggravated robbery of a Burger King restaurant and of a Kwik Trip store earlier in December 2006. The informant, whose name was not included in the reports, told police he “was scared to have a name on the report because of the level of danger presented by the group committing the robberies.”
The reports reflect that the informant identified a number of individuals as the perpetrators of the robberies, including Holley, Rambahal‘s brother, and another individual. The informant also described the weapon that was used in the robberies.2 The informant stated that he learned from Rambahal that Holley owned the pistol used in the robberies and that Holley was known to carry the pistol under the seat of his vehicle. The informant also stated that his cousin had seen Holley hold the pistol and that the cousin heard Holley say that he should take his pistol and “go get” a person who had made Holley mad.
After receiving the reports and pursuant to
The State appealed the district court‘s order. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals reversed. The court held, as a threshold issue, that a “critical impact analysis was not required on an appeal from a discovery order“; and that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered the State to disclose the identity of the informant. Rambahal, 2007 WL 2770261, at *2-3. We granted Rambahal‘s petition for review.
I.
As a preliminary matter, we address the issue of critical impact.
The court of appeals, relying on State v. Renneke, 563 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn. App. 1997), concluded that the State was not required to show that the district court‘s order would have a critical impact on the State‘s case because the critical impact requirement applies to pretrial suppression orders, but not to pretrial discovery orders. Rambahal, 2007 WL 2770261, at *2. Furthermore, the court held that the State is not required to show the critical impact of a pretrial order in the unique circumstances presented by an order requiring disclosure of a confidential informant. Id. (citing State v. Solheim, 477 N.W.2d 785, 786-87 (Minn. App. 1991) (holding that the State is not required to show that it “would dismiss the prosecution rather than disclose the informant“)).
We have never adopted the court of appeals’ rule exempting the State from demonstrating critical impact in discovery-related pretrial appeals, and such a rule appears to be at odds with our prior cases and the plain language of
II.
We turn next to the merits of the issue raised in this appeal. Rambahal argues that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the informant‘s identity would not be material to the defense, and that because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the State to provide the identity of the informant, the disclosure order should be affirmed. The State argues that the informant‘s identity was not necessary to the defense because the informant was a mere transmitter of information and could offer no admissible testimony at Rambahal‘s trial. Accordingly, the State argues, the dis-
The dispute here arises because the common law affords the government a “privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information” to law enforcement. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). We have similarly recognized the State‘s common law privilege to withhold a confidential informant‘s identity because of the State‘s “legitimate interest in protecting the identity of persons who provide information to law enforcement.” State v. Litzau, 650 N.W.2d 177, 184 (Minn. 2002).3
The privilege is not unlimited, however, and it gives way when “the disclosure of an informer‘s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60-61; see also Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 184. When a defendant seeks disclosure of a confidential informant‘s identity, “[t]he defendant has the ultimate burden of establishing the need for the disclosure.” State v. Ford, 322 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Minn. 1982). There is “[n]o fixed rule with respect to disclosure.” State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411, 422-23, 205 N.W.2d 667, 676 (1973). The analysis instead must be done on a case-by-case basis with “[t]he public‘s interest in protecting the flow of information * * * balanced against the individual‘s right to prepare his defense.” Id. at 423, 205 N.W.2d at 676. Our cases reflect that the emphasis in this inquiry is on fundamental fairness. See, e.g., Hughes v. Dakota County, 278 N.W.2d 44, 45 (Minn. 1978); State v. Houle, 257 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Minn. 1977); State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1, 7-9, 221 N.W.2d 146, 150-51 (1974); State v. Purdy, 278 Minn. 133, 144, 153 N.W.2d 254, 261 (1967).
We have articulated four factors for district courts to consider in determining whether to order disclosure of a confidential informant‘s identity: (1) “[w]hether the informant was a material witness“; (2) “[w]hether [the] informer‘s testimony will be material to the issue of guilt“; (3) “[w]hether testimony of officers is suspect“; and (4) “[w]hether the informant‘s testimony might disclose entrapment.” Syrovatka v. State, 278 N.W.2d 558, 561-62 (Minn. 1979) (citing 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein‘s Evidence § 510(06)).4 These four factors, however, are not exclusive. See State v. Medal-Mendoza, 718 N.W.2d 910, 919 (Minn. 2006) (stating that “[s]pecific factors a district court should consider * * * include” the Syrovatka factors (emphasis added)). The four factors, instead, are to be used to inform a district court‘s analysis, which remains a balancing test between the defendant‘s right to prepare a defense and the public‘s interest in effective law enforcement. The central focus of this inquiry is “whether disclosure is nec-
A. Rambahal‘s Interest
In applying the balancing test, a district court must first consider the defendant‘s interest in obtaining the identity of the confidential informant. The Syrovatka factors inform a district court‘s analysis of a defendant‘s interest in disclosure. The parties agree that only the first two Syrovatka factors are relevant here.
The first Syrovatka factor acknowledges a defendant‘s interest in obtaining disclosure in the event that the informant is a material witness. Syrovatka, 278 N.W.2d at 561. Our cases distinguish among informants who are participants in criminal activity, eyewitnesses to that activity, and those simply reporting information to police. See Ford, 322 N.W.2d at 614; Purdy, 278 Minn. at 145, 153 N.W.2d at 262. For example, courts have ordered disclosure in cases where the informant is an active participant in criminal activity. E.g., Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 64. But “[w]here the informant is merely a transmitter of information * * * disclosure is generally not required.” Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 184 (citing Houle, 257 N.W.2d at 323).
It is undisputed in this case that the informant was not an active participant in or an eyewitness to the offense of Rambahal possessing a pistol in violation of
This factor recognizes a defendant‘s interest in disclosure where “the informer‘s testimony will be material to the issue of guilt.” Syrovatka, 278 N.W.2d at 562. The materiality of an informant‘s “possible testimony must be determined by reference to the offense charged * * * and the evidence relating to that count.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62. Where “there is little likelihood that an informer‘s testimony will be helpful to defendant in overcoming an element of the crime charged, the disclosure is not required.” Syrovatka, 278 N.W.2d at 562.
The State argues that the second factor relates only to “testimony” from the informant. In this case, according to the State, the informant has no admissible testimony to offer because the information he has consists solely of hearsay accounts about the ownership of the pistol. But it is not always possible to determine in a pretrial setting what information will be admissible during a future trial. This factor therefore should not be read as limited only to those situations where the defendant can prove at the pretrial stage that the informant will offer evidence admissible at trial. Cf.
The information Rambahal focuses on consists of two of the informant‘s statements: (1) that the pistol was owned by Holley and he was known to carry it in his car, and (2) that the informant‘s cousin had observed Holley hold the pistol and say that he should take his pistol and “go get” a person who had made him mad. Regarding this information, the court of appeals held that “the state must prove only that Rambahal possessed the pistol, either actually or constructively,” and not that he owned the pistol. Rambahal, 2007 WL 2770261, at *3. The court therefore concluded that “whether Rambahal owned the pistol is not material to whether he possessed” it. Id. Because the second factor was not met, the court of appeals held that the district court erred in ordering disclosure. We conclude that the court of appeals construed the second factor too narrowly.
The overarching concern in applying the Syrovatka factors must be whether disclosing the informant‘s identity would be helpful to the defense in overcoming an element of the charge. Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 184. The information the informant possesses does not have to be dispositive, by itself, on an element of the charge, as the court of appeals seems to have concluded. Rather, the information simply needs to be helpful to the defense in overcoming a charge. Id.
In examining the potential for helpfulness, we turn to the facts in the record. The record reflects that the officer encountered two individuals on the Dakota County road on January 1, 2007, but she did not see either individual in possession of the pistol. According to the complaint, the pistol was found on top of the freshly fallen snow, next to where Rambahal was standing. But the complaint also alleges that the officer encountered Holley and Rambahal as they were walking together. The informant‘s statements may be material to whether Rambahal was in possession of the pistol because the statements pertain to the other individual present at the scene when the officer found the pistol. Although ownership does not determine possession and cannot by itself overcome an element of the charge, the fact that the other person with Rambahal may have owned the pistol could be “helpful to defendant in overcoming an element of the crime charged.” Syrovatka, 278 N.W.2d at 562 (emphasis added). For example, evidence from the informant might be used to aid in establishing reasonable doubt by supporting a defense theory that Holley, the person who owned the pistol and who was with Rambahal when the pistol was found, was in possession of it on the night in question. In addition, the complaint reflects that Holley told police that Rambahal carried the pistol for protection. Evidence from the informant about Holley‘s ownership might be admissible to impeach Holley‘s version of events, and thus it would be helpful to the defense.
In summary, we conclude that the relevant Syrovatka factors, primarily the second factor, indicate that the information the informant relayed may be helpful to Rambahal‘s defense. We turn next to consideration of the balance between Rambahal‘s interest and the public interest served by the privilege that protects a confidential informant‘s identity.
B. Balance Between Rambahal‘s Interest and The Public Interest
The United States Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of the govern-
The district court did not analyze the public interest in its order and memorandum. The court simply concluded that because the informant‘s identity was “necessary for [Rambahal] to overcome an element of the crime charged and therefore to prepare a defense,” his need for the identity “necessarily outweighs any hindrance disclos[ure] may have on effective law enforcement.” We agree with the district court that if a defendant shows that disclosure is necessary for him to overcome an element of a charged crime, disclosure would be warranted. But Rambahal has not made such a showing.
As demonstrated above, Rambahal has shown that the information the informant has may be helpful to his defense. But Rambahal has not shown that the disclosure of the informant‘s identity is necessary for him to have a fair trial. For example, the record does not reflect how much of the informant‘s information comes from Rambahal himself, when the informant learned his information, when or under what circumstances the informant‘s cousin saw Holley with the pistol, and when or under what circumstances the cousin heard Holley say that he owned the pistol. Because this information is not in the record, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that disclosure of the informant‘s identity was necessary for Rambahal to overcome an element of the offense.
A defendant does not have to show, however, that the disclosure is necessary for him to overcome an element of the charge in order to overcome the privilege. Disclosure may also be warranted if the informant‘s identity is sufficiently helpful to the defense. See Litzau, 650 N.W.2d at 184. But we cannot determine the level of helpfulness in this case because of the deficiencies in the record discussed above regarding the timeliness of the information in relation to the events at issue in this case. In addition, the record does not reflect that the district court gave any consideration to the safety concerns raised by the informant in the police reports. Such considerations are encompassed within the proper analysis of the relevant public interest, and without this information the public‘s interest cannot be properly weighed against the potential helpfulness to the defense. In the end, the district court‘s decision should articulate if the informant‘s information is sufficiently helpful to the preparation of the defense that the public interest must give way to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.
Even though the record as it stands is not sufficient to sustain the district court‘s conclusion that the privilege should give way, we have recognized that if a defendant “is able to establish a basis for inquiry by the [district] court, then the court should hold an in camera hearing to consider affidavits or to interview the informant in person” in order to determine whether to order disclosure. Ford, 322 N.W.2d at 614; see also State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Minn. 1989) (noting that there is a “lesser burden of establishing a basis for inquiry by the court in an in
Reversed and remanded.
MAGNUSON, C.J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Dissenting, PAGE, J.
PAGE, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In appealing a pretrial order, the State must show clearly and unequivocally that the order will have a critical impact upon the prosecution. State v. McLeod, 705 N.W.2d 776, 784 (Minn. 2005). Critical impact is a threshold issue, and “[i]n the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.” Id. (quoting In re L.E.P., 594 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 1999)); see also State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412, 416 (Minn. 1998) (explaining that the critical impact of the pretrial order must be first determined before deciding whether the order was error); State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 550 (Minn. 1987) (explaining that critical impact had been a threshold requirement to review before the establishment of the court of appeals).
Historically, appeals by the government “in criminal cases are something unusual, exceptional, not favored.” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 245, 101 S.Ct. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The common law rule is that the government has no authority to appeal in a criminal case absent express legislative authorization. Id. “Both prudential and constitutional interests contributed to this tradition. The need to restrict appeals by the prosecutor reflected a prudential concern that individuals should be free from the harassment and vexation of unbounded litigation by the sovereign.” Id. at 246.
“In Minnesota, the legislature first departed from this longstanding rule in 1967 when it enacted
The criminal rules require that the prosecutor‘s oral notice of intent to appeal a pretrial order include a statement for the record as to how the pretrial order will have a critical impact on the prosecution.
Most jurisdictions allow the prosecution to appeal orders suppressing evidence, often by means of statutes that “speak generally of orders ‘suppressing or excluding’ evidence, and have been held applicable to a broad range of pretrial orders limiting the government‘s proof at trial.” 7 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King & Orin S. Kerr, Criminal Procedure, § 27.3(c) at 39-40 (3d ed. 2007). Several jurisdictions limit these appeals to cases in which the suppressed evidence will have a critical or substantial impact on the outcome of the government‘s case. Id. at 42. Hawaii has specifically authorized the immediate appeal of an order denying a prosecution request for a protective order allowing nondisclosure of a witness for personal safety reasons.
We have read our rules as encompassing prosecution appeals of orders suppressing or excluding evidence. E.g., McLeod, 705 N.W.2d at 787 (holding that exclusion of Spreigl evidence would have a critical impact on pending trial); Scott, 584 N.W.2d at 420 (holding that suppression of confession would significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution). Our rules limit these appeals to cases in which the suppression or exclusion orders will have a critical impact on the prosecution. Unlike Hawaii, there is no express authorization in our rules for immediate appeal of a disclosure order in the absence of critical impact. We do have “inherent authority to [accept] an appeal in the interests of justice even when the filing or service requirements set forth in a rule or statute have not been met.” Barrett, 694 N.W.2d at 788 n. 4 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Whether this pretrial appeal does or does not merit departure from the threshold requirement to review in the interests of justice, I still do not believe we can reach the disclosure issue without first determining the threshold issue. Therefore, at a minimum, I would have the parties brief the threshold issue.
ALAN C. PAGE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT