State v. Lisk
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to require disclosure of the identity of the State’s confidential informant. We do not agree. Defendant is correct in his position that the privilege of non-disclosure must give way when the informant’s identity is essential or relevant or helpful to the defense or is essential to a fair determination of the cause. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed. 2d 639 (1957); State v. Fletcher and State v. St. Arnold, 279 N.C. 85, 181 S.E. 2d 405 (1971). Furthermore, the State is compelled to disclose the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- State v. FoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. FletcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Pue v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1980
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- People v. TurmonMichigan Supreme Court · 1983
- Ex Parte McCurleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1980
- Christopher Tiplick v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2015
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.