A judge is required to hold an in-camera hearing to determine whether the State is required to reveal to the defendant the identity of a confidential informant. Chandler v. State, 317 Ga. App. 406 (2012); Strozier v. State, 314 Ga. App. 432 (2012); Hernandez v. State, 308 Ga. App 136 (2011); Moore v. State, 187 Ga. App. 387 (1988). "The due process concept of fundamental fairness requires that the public interest in protecting the flow of information to law enforcement officials be balanced against the right of the accused to a full and fair opportunity to defend himself.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1956); Thornton v. State, 167238 Ga. 160 (1977). Determining whether the State must reveal the identity of the confidential informant involves several steps. First, the defendant must make a showing: (1) that the confidential informant allegedly participated in or witnessed the transaction and his testimony would be material to the defense on the issue of guilt or punishment; (2) that the informant's testimony would be relevant because testimony from witnesses for the prosecution and the defense will be in conflict; and (3) that the informant's testimony is necessary because he would be the only available witness who could corroborate or contradict the testimony of these witnesses. King v. State, 325 Ga. App. 777 (2014); Grant v. State, 230 Ga. App. 330 (1998).
If the defendant meets this initial showing that the informant's testimony could be relevant, material, and necessary, the second step is for the judge to conduct an in-camera hearing to determine whether that initial showing is supported by the informant's actual testimony. If the judge determines, based on this hearing, that "neither the disclosure of the informant's identity nor the contents of his testimony would benefit the defense or serve the discovery of truth," then the inquiry ends and the State is not required to disclose the information. Gray v. State, 204 Ga. App. 33 (1992). If, on the other hand, the judge determines that the confidential informant's testimony would lead to exculpatory evidence, then the judge must balance the defendant's right to defend himself against the State's interest in encouraging the public to share information with law enforcement officials. Griffiths v. State, 283 Ga. App. 176 (2006); Little v. State, 230 Ga. App. 803 (1998).