Montano

People v. Montano

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1607·244 Cal. App. 2d 555·53 Cal. Rptr. 145
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1966Crim. 10968California4,191 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kaus, J.

The sole question on this appeal from a conviction for possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530) is whether the trial judge should have ordered the disclosure of the names of two confidential informants. The search warrant which led to the discovery of the contraband in defendant’s home and garage was issued on the basis of the information supplied by the two individuals to a deputy sheriff.

After the information against defendant was filed in the superior court, he made a pretrial motion in that court for the discovery of the names of the two informants. He supported his motion with an affidavit to the effect that it was apparent to him from reading the affidavit supporting the search warrant that the two informants were eyewitnesses to the alleged offense and that he did not know their true names or addresses. The motion was denied and defendant then petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent his then scheduled trial from being held without prior disclosure of the names of the informants. The district attorney filed points and authorities in opposition to the petition which was denied without the granting of an alternative writ.

It should be noted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.