COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0817-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD A. COOPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Oneida County:
MARK A. MANGERSON, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Richard Cooper appeals his convictions for misdemeanor
marijuana possession, misdemeanor drug paraphernalia possession, and felony
marijuana delivery, after a trial by jury.
Cooper argues that the trial court improperly refused to examine
information concerning a confidential informant on an in camera basis for the
purpose of addressing Cooper's request to disclose the informant's
identity. Cooper also argues that we
should review the trial court's decision de novo. In response, the State argues that the trial court made a
discretionary decision to which we owe deference and that the court properly
exercised its discretion. We reject
Cooper's arguments and affirm his convictions.
Cooper relies on State
v. Shiffra, 175 Wis.2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), for the
proposition that de novo review is the applicable standard on requests to conduct
in camera examinations. While Shiffra
is not controlling, and dealt with a request to disclose a sexual assault
victim's mental health records, not a request to disclose a confidential
informant's identity, even when we apply de novo review, there is no
error.
As the trial court
noted, Cooper provided no information on how an informant may have assisted in
the suspected entrapment. At trial,
defendants claiming entrapment have the burden to show as a preliminary matter
that someone induced them to commit a crime.
State v. Hilleshiem, 172 Wis.2d 1, 8, 492 N.W.2d 381, 384
(Ct. App. 1992). We believe the same
preliminary showing applies to someone requesting an in camera inspection of
records concerning a confidential informant with a possible entrapment
connection. See Shiffra,
175 Wis.2d at 605, 499 N.W.2d at 721 (in camera inspection requires preliminary
showing of materiality). Here, Cooper
admitted through his trial counsel that he had no information to indicate how
anyone may have compelled him to commit the drug offenses. He stated only that he did not know the
identity of the informant. The trial
court had no obligation to conduct the in camera examination unless Cooper
furnished evidence of entrapment and of a connection to a suspected informant. Cooper did not furnish a sufficient showing
to require an in camera examination.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.