Danny Ray House v. State of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that trial counsel's failure to seek disclosure of a confidential informant's identity—a participant in the drug sale and the only witness who could amplify or contradict the agent's identification—was deficient performance because the choice was not an informed one based on adequate preparation. It further held that, when otherwise proper, disclosure of an informant's identity may be required before trial to allow adequate preparation of the defense, with a discretionary in camera examination available as an alternative once materiality is shown. Rejecting automatic disclosure, the court held that the informant's identity is neither discoverable in post-conviction under Rule 28 § 6(C)(7) nor constitutionally required there, and that prejudice is to be proven through a two-step procedure: a threshold relevance showing followed by an in camera proceeding on the informant's potential trial testimony, with that evidence sealed for appeal. The court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment as modified and remanded for the in camera proceeding; Justice Birch dissented, agreeing counsel was deficient but finding prejudice already established from House's protestations of innocence and best-interest plea, and would have vacated the conviction and remanded for a plea or trial.