## Facts

- A confidential informant told Officer Schaefer around 1:00 p.m. that earlier that day Bernard Gales gave the informant marijuana at one house and sold the informant marijuana at another house across the street.
- Police learned the first house was owned by Michael Thornton and that Gales lived in an apartment in the second house.
- Based on Schaefer’s affidavit recounting the informant’s report, police obtained search warrants for both locations.
- Police executed the warrants at about 9:30 p.m. that night and searched Gales’s apartment, seizing cocaine and a handgun.
- Gales was prosecuted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (and, according to the charging instrument, related offenses arising from the search).
- Gales moved to quash the warrants and suppress the seized evidence, seeking a hearing under *Franks v. Delaware* to attack the truthfulness of the warrant affidavit.
- At the *Franks* hearing, Schaefer testified consistent with the informant-based timeline and the warrant application.
- Gales presented witnesses including (a) an employer who testified Gales attended training approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. that day and (b) Thornton, who testified he and Gales were not friends and Gales had no access to Thornton’s house.
- Gales requested production of the confidential informant at the *Franks* hearing and disclosure of the informant’s identity.
- The trial court interviewed the informant in camera, outside the presence of counsel and without a court reporter, then found the informant was the source of the affidavit information and corroborated Schaefer’s account; the court did not disclose the informant’s identity and did not state the specific time the informant claimed to have bought marijuana.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash and suppress, finding Gales failed to prove Schaefer included false statements in the affidavit.
- A jury convicted Gales of possession with intent to deliver 100–400 grams of cocaine and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon; the court imposed concurrent terms of 30 years and 5 years.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash and suppress by refusing to require disclosure or production of the confidential informant at the *Franks* hearing and instead conducting an in camera interview.
2. Whether Gales met his burden under *Franks v. Delaware* to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the warrant affidavit contained intentional or reckless false statements necessary to a finding of probable cause.
3. Whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including admission of other-crimes evidence and the State’s cross-examination of a defense witness, denied Gales a fair trial.
4. Whether the 30-year sentence was an abuse of discretion and whether the case had to be remanded to impose a statutorily required drug fine.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Gales’s convictions and prison sentences.
- The court held the trial court did not err by declining to disclose the informant’s identity or compel the informant’s appearance at the *Franks* hearing and by using an in camera interview as a method to evaluate the claim while keeping the informant confidential.
- The court held Gales did not carry his *Franks* burden to prove Schaefer knowingly or recklessly made false statements material to probable cause.
- The court found no reversible error in the challenged other-crimes evidence or the complained-of cross-examination.
- The court remanded for the limited purpose of imposing the mandatory statutory drug fine.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Franks v. Delaware*, a defendant who challenges a warrant affidavit must ultimately prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant included a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that the false statement was necessary to the probable-cause finding.
- A defendant is not automatically entitled to disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity merely because the informant supplied information used to obtain a search warrant.
- A trial court may use an in camera examination of a confidential informant to test a defendant’s warrant challenge while preserving the State’s privilege to withhold the informant’s identity, so long as the procedure allows the court to assess whether the informant exists and whether the affiant’s account is supported.
- Evidence of other wrongdoing is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is not reversible error absent a showing of unfair prejudice affecting the verdict.
- Limits on cross-examination are committed to the trial court’s discretion; reversal requires a showing of substantial prejudice.
- A sentence within the statutory range is reviewed for abuse of discretion; failure to impose a mandatory fine is a correctable sentencing error that may require a limited remand.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the search and the resulting convictions, ruling that Gales did not prove intentional or reckless falsity in the warrant affidavit and that the trial court could evaluate the confidential informant’s role through an in camera interview without disclosing the informant’s identity; it affirmed the prison terms, but remanded solely to impose the mandatory drug fine.


People v. Gales, 618 N.E.2d 847 (1993)