in-camera hearing in Florida

23 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bailey v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2008 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020See, e.g., Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that a “trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing to consider the necessity of the [confidential] informant’s testimony and the State’s interest in nondisclosure” when a “defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant’s involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense”); see also House v. State, 283 So. 3d 451 , 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (Bilbrey, J., specially concurring) (“By not conducting an in camera review before prohibiting disclosur 2019See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."); see also Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-c	3	3
State v. Robertsgreen fladistctapp · 1997 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2003–2019 2 sentences 2019See State v. Roberts, 686 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("Once a defendant carries an initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense."); see also Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ("When a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant's involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-c 2003Citing its earlier decision in State v. Roberts, 686 So.2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the court found these sworn averments to be sufficient to warrant an in-camera hearing for the trial court to determine whether the confidential informant's testimony tended to exculpate the defendant on the misidentification issue or varied materially from the testimony of the police officer who identified the defendant at trial.	2	3
Munford v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1977 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016 2 sentences 2016See Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Smith v. State, 318 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (finding reversible error in trial court’s refusal to allow defense to develop Cl’s identity when State’s evidence showed that Cl “arranged the whole affair” and rejecting dissenting opinion’s contention that defendant’s knowledge of Cl’s identity rendered error harmless given that ruling prevented defense from establishing that known witness was police informant); English, 301 So.2d at 814 (“For aught appears the testimon 2010Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 .	2	3
Hamilton v. Ramosgreen fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2020 2 sentences 2020See Hamilton v. Ramos, 796 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). 2008See Hamilton v. Ramos, 796 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).	2	2
Beasley v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1978 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016 2 sentences 2016See Bailey v. State, 994 So.2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that a defendant is not required to allege all of the elements of an entrapment defense; “[a] motion is sufficient to invoke an in-camera hearing if the defense is possible in light of the facts alleged”); cf. Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (holding that in-camera hearing was not required when defendant failed to either swear to factual basis in motion for disclosure or present proof in support). 2008State v. Roberts, 686 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Beasley v. State, 354 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed in part on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978).	2	2
Felton v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1988 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1990–1991 2 sentences 1991See Felton v. State, 534 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wester v. State, 368 So.2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). 1990See Felton v. State, 534 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wester v. State, 368 So.2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).	2	2
State v. Munfordgreen fla · 1978 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016 2 sentences 2016See Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Smith v. State, 318 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (finding reversible error in trial court’s refusal to allow defense to develop Cl’s identity when State’s evidence showed that Cl “arranged the whole affair” and rejecting dissenting opinion’s contention that defendant’s knowledge of Cl’s identity rendered error harmless given that ruling prevented defense from establishing that known witness was police informant); English, 301 So.2d at 814 (“For aught appears the testimon 2010Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 .	1	3
McCray v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1999 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2003–2008 2 sentences 2008See McCray v. State, 730 So.2d at 818 ; Acosta, 439 So.2d at 1027 ; Munford, 343 So.2d at 69 . 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges.	1	3
State v. Zamoragreen fladistctapp · 1988 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2010 2 sentences 2010Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 . 2010Id., State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).	1	2
State v. Acostagreen fladistctapp · 1983 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–2008 2 sentences 2008Id. 2008See McCray v. State, 730 So.2d at 818 ; Acosta, 439 So.2d at 1027 ; Munford, 343 So.2d at 69 .	1	2
English v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Smith v. State, 318 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (finding reversible error in trial court’s refusal to allow defense to develop Cl’s identity when State’s evidence showed that Cl “arranged the whole affair” and rejecting dissenting opinion’s contention that defendant’s knowledge of Cl’s identity rendered error harmless given that ruling prevented defense from establishing that known witness was police informant); English, 301 So.2d at 814 (“For aught appears the testimon	1	1
Smith v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See Munford v. State, 343 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), quashed on other grounds, 357 So.2d 706 (Fla.1978); see also Smith v. State, 318 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (finding reversible error in trial court’s refusal to allow defense to develop Cl’s identity when State’s evidence showed that Cl “arranged the whole affair” and rejecting dissenting opinion’s contention that defendant’s knowledge of Cl’s identity rendered error harmless given that ruling prevented defense from establishing that known witness was police informant); English, 301 So.2d at 814 (“For aught appears the testimon	1	1
American Exp. Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Cruzgreen fladistctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (remanding for an in-camera inspection of the material sought - 37 - and a determination of whether it constituted a trade secret); Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (remanding for an in- camera hearing and inspection of the materials sought to determine whether they constituted trade secrets). 2014Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (remanding for an in-camera inspection of the material sought and a determination of whether it constituted a trade secret); Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So.2d 944, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (remanding for an in-camera hearing and inspection of the materials sought to determine whether they constituted trade secrets).	1	1
Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberggreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (remanding for an in-camera inspection of the material sought - 37 - and a determination of whether it constituted a trade secret); Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (remanding for an in- camera hearing and inspection of the materials sought to determine whether they constituted trade secrets). 2014Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (remanding for an in-camera inspection of the material sought and a determination of whether it constituted a trade secret); Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So.2d 944, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (remanding for an in-camera hearing and inspection of the materials sought to determine whether they constituted trade secrets).	1	1
State v. Carnegiegreen fladistctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006In doing so, the Fourth District specifically noted that: The fact that the confidential informant was present during the drug transaction does not automatically compel his disclosure, see State v. Carnegie, 472 So.2d 1329, 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), nor does the failure of the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant upon court order automatically entitle a defendant to dismissal of the charges.	1	1
Lucero v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991In Lucero v. State, 564 So.2d 158, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the court concluded: However, on appeal, we cannot properly determine the relevant facts forming the basis of the trial judge’s conclusion or determine whether there was an abuse of discretion because the in-camera hearing was not transcribed.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Williams green fladistctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1990State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). 1990State v. Kakas, 568 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).	3	1981–1990
Roviaro v. United States green scotus · 1957 2 sentences 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges. 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges.	2	2002–2006
Wester v. State green fladistctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1991See Felton v. State, 534 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wester v. State, 368 So.2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). 1990See Felton v. State, 534 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wester v. State, 368 So.2d 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).	2	1990–1991
Betsey v. Litt neutral fladistctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1988State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 1983The state did ask for an in-camera hearing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(i), so that the necessary balancing required by Williams could be conducted by the trial court. [1] Although an in-camera proceeding may not be necessary in every case involving disclosure of a confidential informant, see Standards for Criminal Justice Standard 11-2.6 (2d ed. 1980), and related commentary, we have previously held that such a hearing is a necessary condition precedent to the ultimate sanction of dismissal, see State v. Nelson, 405 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).	2	1983–1988
Garcia v. State green fladistctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2011In the first appeal from his convictions, we “remanded the case for the trial court to prepare an affidavit setting forth who was present, the findings that were made, and the trial court’s conclusions, at the in-camera hearing.” Id. 2011We concluded “that the trial court erred in not having a court reporter present to transcribe the record of the in-camera hearing, as required by rule 3.220(m),” because “[wjithout a transcription of the hearing, it is impossible to discern exactly what occurred.” Id.	1	2011–2011
State v. Hernandez green fladistctapp · 1989 1 sentence 2010Id., State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).	1	2010–2010
Miller v. State green fladistctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges.	1	2006–2006
State v. Jones green fladistctapp · 1971 1 sentence 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges.	1	2006–2006
State v. Fuentes green fladistctapp · 1990 1 sentence 2006Simmons relies upon Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), Miller v. State, 729 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), McCray v. State, 730 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), State v. Fuentes, 563 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and State v. Jones, 247 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), in support of his proposition that disclosure of the informant is mandated, and that law enforcement's failure to obtain the informant's identity and contact information warrants dismissal of the charges.	1	2006–2006
Faretta v. California green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 2000Finally, Brooks asserts that the trial court failed to properly advise him during the in-camera hearing of the right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 2000Finally, Brooks asserts that the trial court failed to properly advise him during the in-camera hearing of the right to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).	1	2000–2000
State v. Pinder green fladistctapp · 1996 2 sentences 1999In State v. Pinder, 678 So.2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the trial court had granted a defendant's motion for an in-camera hearing involving the testimony of the victim's sexual assault counselor. 1999We held that in order to get an in-camera hearing a defendant must "establish a reasonable probability that the privileged matters contain material information necessary to his defense." Id. at 417 .	1	1999–1999
Allstate Ins. Co., Inc. v. Walker green fladistctapp · 1991 1 sentence 1999As this court said in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Walker, 583 So.2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) when the work product and attorney-client privileges are asserted, the trial court must hold an in-camera inspection of the discovery material at issue in order to rule on the applicability of the privilege.	1	1999–1999
State v. Kakas neutral fladistctapp · 1990 1 sentence 1990State v. Kakas, 568 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).	1	1990–1990
State v. Jimenez green fladistctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1988State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Nelson, 405 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).	1	1988–1988
United States v. David Wayne Freund green ca5 · 1976	1	1984–1984
Mingle v. State green fladistctapp · 1983	1	1984–1984
Bradco Oil & Gas Company v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., and Hydril Co. green ca5 · 1976	1	1984–1984
Marshall v. United States green scotus · 1976	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

CA 28 (1982–2026) FL 23 (1981–2020) OK 22 (1980–2017) TX 20 (1985–2024) GA 15 (1986–2016) OH 13 (1997–2023) NY 9 (1991–2013) MI 7 (2008–2025) PA 6 (1986–2026) WV 4 (1995–2024) NJ 4 (1994–2024) AR 3 (2015–2023) CO 3 (1971–2026) ID 3 (1985–2023) NC 3 (1982–2017) SD 3 (1972–2000) NM 2 (1984–2013) IA 2 (1975–2014) WY 2 (2010–2025) MA 2 (1991–1994)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check