# State v. Edwards

> Supreme Court of Missouri · November 10, 1958 · 317 S.W.2d 441

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766139

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willard O'Neill EDWARDS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** November 10, 1958
- **Citations:** 317 S.W.2d 441; 1958 Mo. LEXIS 544
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eager
- **Judges:** Hollingsworth, Storckman, Eager, Hyde, Leedy, Dalton, Westhues
- **Cited by:** 52 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/9766139

## Opinion text

EAGER, Judge
(concurring).
I feel that the situation here does require a clarification of the law concerning the disclosure of the name of an informant. I wish, however, to re-emphasize the fact that, as I understand the case, we are by no means directing the trial court, in this or any other case, to require the disclosure of the name of the informant. We are merely releasing that court from the prior and somewhat rigid limitations, in order that it may exercise its discretion in considering the matter; therein it must seek to balance the strong public policy which gives rise to the privilege of such communications against the possibility of any real and substantial prejudice to the defendant, in the bona fide preparation of his case, from a failure to divulge the name. The good faith of the arresting officer is at least a highly material element. Disclosure is certainly not to be required in order to gratify any morbid curiosity or a spirit of revenge. There is much in the opinion of Judge DALTON which should be seriously considered in any such hearing. It well may be that a stronger showing of necessity would be required than has previously been made.
In the light of these explanations, added merely by way of emphasis, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766139. Public record. Not legal advice.