Page 53 - TPA Journal July August 2022

CONCLUSION capital murder of Espino. During initial discovery,
Appellee’s defense counsel learned about the
The trial judge did not err by finding that evidence earlier controlled buy involving Espino and the
that Cassie was murdered was relevant to the informant. The defense also found out that Espino
charge of capital murder in the course of was not charged in connection with the controlled
kidnapping. It was within the zone of reasonable buy and that the drugs had been destroyed. The
disagreement for the court to find that the evidence defense suspected that Espino himself may have
was admissible either as proof of an element of the been an informant and that Alejandro could have
offense or as an extraneous offense illustrating the had a motive to intentionally kill Espino. The
context in which the charged offense occurred. We defense then sought information related to the
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and controlled buy, including the confidential
remand the case to that court to address Appellant’s informant’s identity. The defense theorized that
remaining points of error regarding Cassie’s Alejandro could have learned about Espino’s
alleged hearsay statements and the motion for involvement with the controlled buy from the
continuance. informant and that Alejandro used the attempted
robbery as an opportunity to shoot and kill Espino.
INTHALANGSY v. State, Tex. Crim. App., No.
PD-1000-20, November 10, 2021. The State and the Task Force officers claimed that
the informant’s identity was privileged under Rule
508, but the trial court, agreeing with the defense
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT – disclosure that the informant could possess exculpatory
information, ordered the State to allow the defense
In this case, the trial court granted a motion to to review the informant’s file under a gag order to
dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Evidence 508. ascertain whether or not the file contained
On appeal, the court of appeals decided that the potentially exculpatory information. The trial court
trial court abused its discretion. But a defendant’s determined that this was the best way to ensure
burden under Rule 508 is not a high one, and, that, if potentially exculpatory information existed
based upon our review of the record, we determine regarding the informant, it would be discovered by
that Appellee made the necessaryplausible the defense. The State filed a petition for
showing required by the rule. The trial court’s mandamus in the court of appeals, claiming that the
dismissal was not an abuse of discretion, and we trial court was required to conduct an in camera
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. hearing under Rule 508 before ordering that the
defense be allowed to review the informant’s file.
Using a confidential informant, the Hays County The court of appeals denied relief. The State then
Narcotics Task Force (Task Force) conducted a sought mandamus relief from this Court, but the
controlled drug buy from Joel Espino, who was a parties and the trial court agreed to a Rule 508 in
narcotics dealer along with his roommate, Andrew camera hearing.
Alejandro. Three months later, Appellee and
several co-defendants allegedly attempted to rob At the in camera hearing, the prosecutor for the
Espino and Alejandro. During the attempted State informed the trial court that, although he was
robbery, Alejandro shot and killed his roommate originally under the impression that the Task Force
Espino and wounded two of the alleged robbers. officers would identify the informant, he was
Alejandro was the only person to fire a weapon subsequently told that the Task Force officers did
during the incident. Appellee was charged with the not know who the informant was because they

July - August 2022 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 49