Ruiz

After denial of his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant (Cl) who witnessed the transaction, defendant was convicted of selling methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.) On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying the motion.

Because the Cl did not testify at the in camera hearing on defendant’s motion to disclose the informant’s identity, we shall reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further in camera proceedings. As we shall explain, the fact the Cl witnessed the alleged methamphetamine transaction does not necessarily compel disclosure of the Cl’s identity. Evidence adduced at an in camera hearing may establish there is no reasonable possibility the Cl could give evidence which might result in defendant’s exoneration. In order for the trial court to make this determination, the Cl’s in camera testimony is essential because he was an eyewitness to the alleged transaction. The materiality of the Cl’s possible testimony cannot be determined by a peace officer’s characterization of the Cl’s knowledge of the incident and the Cl’s reliability and credibility.

Discussion

I

At the preliminary hearing, Deputy Sheriff Bruce…