Bright appealed his conviction of possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. On appeal, Bright argued the trial court erred when denied his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant (“CI”), and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed.
The Court held that Bright failed to make the requisite showing that the request for disclosure of the identity of the CI was reasonable and that the information sought to be obtained through disclosure was material. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the verdict was not objectively shocking.