Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Battin

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

October 16, 2013

STATE
v.
ARIONNA BATTIN, Defendant. STATE
v.
FRANK POPE, Defendant.

ORDER

Calvin L. Scott, Jr. Judge

On this 16th Day of October, 2013, it appears to the Court that: Defendants Arionna Battin ("Defendant Battin") and Frank Pope each moved to obtain the identity of the State's Confidential Source ("CS").[1] The Court has held a Flowers hearing and reviewed the parties' submissions in order to determine whether the CS could have information that could "materially aid the defense."[2] For the following reasons, Defendants' motions are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Background

In July 2012, Delaware State Police ("DSP") officers were investigating Defendant Pope's brother, Kareem Pope ("Kareem"), for suspected drug activity. On July 19, 2012, officers conducted surveillance of the Econo Lodge Hotel in Newark, Delaware and observed Kareem entering and exiting Room 105 during that day.

The CS contacted Detective Jeffrey Gliem and informed him that Kareem was selling heroin in the Newark area. The CS provided Kareem's cell phone number and physical description and positively identified him in a photograph. The CS also indicated that it could purchase heroin from Kareem and agreed to conduct a controlled purchase from him.

The CS contacted Kareem by telephone and Kareem agreed to meet the CS at the Econo Lodge. Shortly after, Kareem called the CS to inform him that his brother would be conducting the transaction at the Days Inn Hotel in Newark instead. Kareem provided the CS with Defendant Pope's cell phone number. The CS contacted Defendant Pope and they agreed to meet in the rear parking lot of the Days Inn for the transaction. Defendant Pope stated that he would be in a black truck. Police established surveillance at the Days Inn while they continued their surveillance at the Econo Lodge.

Police observed a black male, later identified as Defendant Pope, exiting Room 105 of the Econo Lodge and enter a black SUV. Thereafter, police observed the black SUV enter the parking lot at the Days Inn. Defendant Battin was driving as Defendant Pope sat in the front passenger seat. Defendant Battin parked the SUV next to the CS's vehicle. Defendant Pope exited the SUV and, as he approached the CS's window, Detective Gliem exited his vehicle. Defendant Pope fled, discarding what appeared to be bundles of heroin bags. Consequently, no transaction took place. Both Defendants were seized.

A search of Defendant Pope revealed $1379.00 in U.S. Currency, a cell phone, and a female driver's license that was not Defendant Battin's. Four bundles of heroin were discovered on the ground and 9 bundles were found in the SUV. Defendant Battin informed police that Defendant Pope was her boyfriend, the two were residing in Room 105, and that she used the female's license to rent Room 105. [3] However, she indicated that she knew nothing about the heroin sales.

At the Econo Lodge, police observed a Chevy Malibu driven by a black female (later identified as Kareem's girlfriend) with a person matching Kareem's description park directly outside of Room 105. Inside Room 105, police recovered drug packing paraphernalia used to package a log of heroin.

Inside the Malibu, police found 58 bundles of heroin, a semi-automatic handgun, and identification documents for Defendant Pope.

Defendant Battin was indicted on charges of two counts of Drug Dealing, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Conspiracy (with Defendant Pope) Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, and other related charges. Defendant Pope was indicted on charges of Drug Dealing, Conspiracy Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, and other related charges. Kareem Pope was also arrested but all charges have been nolle prossed.

Defendants Battin and Pope, through counsel, moved separately for the disclosure of the identity of the CS and to request that the Court hold a Flowers hearing. The State argued that the Defendants failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the informant could materially aid their defense. Each party submitted questions to the Court and an in camera Flowers hearing was held on October 9, 2013.

Discussion

The issue before the Court is whether the CS's identity or statements must be disclosed pursuant to Delaware Uniform Rule of Evidence 509. In a criminal case, the State may refuse disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant, unless a defendant shows, "beyond mere speculation" that the informant "may be able to give testimony that would materially aid the defense."[4] If it appears that the informant may have such testimony, the Court "will hold a so-called 'Flowers hearing' to decide, from affidavits and/or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.