Daniel Singleton v. State ( 2012 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00303-CR
DANIEL SINGLETON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 220th District Court
Hamilton County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR-07617
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Oran Daniel Singleton was convicted of possession of methamphetamine in an
amount of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2010). He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. We
affirm.
Singleton contends in one issue that the trial court erred when it refused to
disclose the informant's identity in open court and hold an in-camera hearing to
evaluate the informant's reliability. Singleton asserts that disclosure of the informant's
identity is necessary because there was a reasonable probability that the confidential
informant would be a material witness to his guilt or innocence.
We review a trial court's denial of a motion to disclose a confidential informant
under an abuse of discretion standard. See Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). Generally, the State has a privilege to refuse to disclose the
identity of a confidential informant who has furnished information to a law
enforcement officer conducting an investigation. See TEX. R. EVID. 508(a). There are
three exceptions that may require the State to disclose the identity of the informant. See
TEX. R. EVID. 508(c)(1)-(3). Singleton relies on the second exception, which provides in
pertinent part:
Testimony on Merits. If it appears from the evidence in the case or from
other showing by a party that an informer may be able to give testimony
necessary to a fair determination of … guilt or innocence in a criminal
case, and the public entity invokes the privilege, the court shall give the
public entity an opportunity to show in camera facts relevant to
determining whether the informant can, in fact, supply that testimony.
TEX. R. EVID. 508(c)(2).
The defendant bears the initial burden of showing that the confidential informant
may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the defendant's guilt
or innocence. Id. This initial burden has been described as a "plausible showing." Bodin
v. State, 807 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). "Evidence from any source, but not
mere conjecture or speculation must be presented to make the required showing that
Singleton v. State Page 2
the informant's identity must be disclosed." Id. If the defendant meets the burden of
making the preliminary showing, then the trial court is required to hold an in-camera
hearing. See Bailey v. State, 804 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991, no pet.).
The in-camera hearing provides the State the opportunity to show facts that rebut the
defendant's preliminary showing. Id.
Whenever an informant is an eyewitness to an alleged offense, then that
informant can give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or
innocence. Anderson v. State, 817 S.W.2d 69, 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, when
the informant's information is used only to establish probable cause and the informant
was not a participant in the offense for which the defendant is charged, the identity of
the informant need not be disclosed because his testimony is not essential to a fair
determination of guilt. See Washington v. State, 902 S.W.2d 649, 656-57 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd).
Singleton argues on appeal that only the informants could place the drugs, the
buy money, and Singleton at the scene. Further, because one of the informants may
have been female, he argues that a single deputy acting alone could not properly search
two persons of differing gender. He also argues that he could have attacked the
credibility of the female informant which would have cast doubt on Singleton’s guilt.
These informants, however, could offer no testimony about the actual offense.
There is no evidence that the confidential informants participated in the offense for
Singleton v. State Page 3
which Singleton was charged, that is, possession of methamphetamine, nor is there
evidence the informants were eyewitnesses to the search. The informants’ testimony
would only be relevant to the issue of probable cause, thus making it unnecessary for
the identity of the informants to be disclosed. Washington, 902 S.W.2d at 657.
Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold an in-
camera hearing or to disclose the identity of the informants. Ford v. State, 179 S.W.3d
203, 210 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd). Singleton’s sole issue is
overruled.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2012
Do not publish
[CR25]
Singleton v. State Page 4