James v. State , 493 S.W.2d 201 ( 1973 )

ROBERTS, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent, and feel that disclosure of the informant’s name is not required in this case, for the following reasons : there was no opportunity to “plant” the drugs on appellant as in Roviaro; neither entrapment nor any other affirmative defense was raised or even suggested by appellant; and the present informant was an observer of the actual transaction and not an active participant. In summary, no particularized need has been shown as to the necessity for revealing the name of the informant.