Eddie Simmons was charged with the sale, manufacture, delivery or possession of cocaine as a result of an April 2002 incident involving a drug transaction. Simmons asserted a defense of misidentification and asserted that it was someone other than he who participated in the transaction. The trial court dismissed the charge after the State was unable to produce the confidential informant who helped the undercover officer gain access to the porch where the transaction took place. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and held that in spite of the misidentification defense, the disclosure of the informant's identity was not required in this case. In its written opinion, the Third District certified conflict with another district court.