NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

McKINSTER, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the notice of joinder in the petition, and the district attorney's response. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

A defendant seeking disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant usually need only show that the informant might give exculpatory evidence and was a percipient witness, although an unreasonable, purely speculative hypothesis will not suffice. (People v. Luera (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 513.)

As to both petitioners, we reject the "entrapment" argument, and it is also not clear from the petition what the informant could offer in this respect, as the price quoted by the undercover officer for the marijuana is apparently undisputed. However, as to petitioner Williams, and recognizing that the motion below could have articulated it more clearly, we think there is "some" possibility that the confidential informant could provide evidence in his favor. We say this because Williams was apparently not a participant in the original negotiations for the sale, so he at least has the opportunity to argue that he was merely "along for the ride" when the sale was consummated. Hence, there is a not-implausible scenario under which the informant could give exculpatory evidence regarding any statements by Williams and the codefendants during the transaction. It cannot be concluded that he (or she) would merely have corroborated the undercover officer.

Accordingly, the trial court should have conducted an in camera hearing at which the People could present evidence, which might tend to establish that no such exculpatory evidence could possibly be forthcoming. (See Davis v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1272.)

We doubt that this analysis applies to petitioner Mitchell, whose joinder in both the motion and the petition of Williams was to a large extent inapposite. However, as we resolve the case, the trial court will have the opportunity to consider the informant's possible testimony with respect to both petitioners.

DISPOSITION

The petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order denying petitioners' motion for disclosure of the confidential informant. Instead, the trial court is to schedule an in camera hearing at which real party in interest may present evidence to demonstrate that the informant would not, in fact, provide evidence helpful to the defense.

Petitioners are directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

We concur:

RAMIREZ, P. J.

CODRINGTON, J.