People v. Garcia

I dissent.

The majority compile in the margin of their opinion those cases involving a “mere informer,” in which nondisclosure of identity was upheld (fn. 5, ante, p. 837), and eases in which disclosure was required (fn. 6, ante, p. 837).

In the latter category of cases, the informer in each instance was a direct participant in the narcotic transaction and thus became “no longer simply an informer. He is a material witness to the criminal act, in fact, he is similar to a feigned accomplice.” (People v. Lawrence (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 450 [308 P.2d 821].) In People v. Perez (1965) 62 Cal.2d…