context: For these reasons, the in camera evidence showed that the informant, as an eyewitness to the purchase, could potentially give testimony necessary to a fair determination of appellant's guilt or innocence, specifically, appellant's entrapment defense. See Tex.R.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 807 S.W.2d 318, 318-19
citation_a.parenthetical: holding trial court erred in not holding in camera hearing when defendant showed that he needed to know, for possible entrapment defense, whether informant was certain individual who had been in appellant's apartment on given day
citation_a.sentence: Evid. 508(c)(2); Anderson, 817 S.W.2d at 72 (holding defendant met initial burden under rule 508(c)(2) because showed informant was eyewitness to crime); cf. Bodin, 807 S.W.2d at 318-19 (holding trial court erred in not holding in camera hearing when defendant showed that he needed to know, for possible entrapment defense, whether informant was certain individual who had been in appellant’s apartment on given day).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 817 S.W.2d 72, 72
citation_b.parenthetical: holding defendant met initial burden under rule 508(c)(2) because showed informant was eyewitness to crime
citation_b.sentence: Evid. 508(c)(2); Anderson, 817 S.W.2d at 72 (holding defendant met initial burden under rule 508(c)(2) because showed informant was eyewitness to crime); cf. Bodin, 807 S.W.2d at 318-19 (holding trial court erred in not holding in camera hearing when defendant showed that he needed to know, for possible entrapment defense, whether informant was certain individual who had been in appellant’s apartment on given day).