# Commonwealth v. Roebuck

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 31, 1996 · 545 Pa. 471

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747384

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Nathaniel ROEBUCK, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 31, 1996
- **Citations:** 545 Pa. 471; 681 A.2d 1279; 1996 Pa. LEXIS 1507
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747384

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that disclosure was necessary despite presence of third party; however, record unclear as to whether the third party witness saw or heard the sale at issue and, in any event, the witness “was under indictment for [his] participation in [the sale].”
- concluding that disclosure was appropriate when the appellant sold narcotics on two occasions to an undercover officer, but the only eyewitness to the initial transaction other than the informant was a police officer

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
I am constrained to agree with the majority in this case. I write separately to emphasize that the majority’s holding should be strictly limited to situations, such as the present case, where a defendant demonstrates that the informant’s identity would materially aid in his or her defense, and where the Commonwealth presents no evidence at all to prove that disclosure of the informant’s identity would jeopardize his or her safety or compromise ongoing investigations. If any of these countervailing considerations are present, they weigh heavily against requiring the Commonwealth to disclose the confidential informant’s identity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747384. Public record. Not legal advice.