trooper that he could buy cocaine from the defendant, and the trooper made a purchase from the defendant in the Cl's presence. However, the defendant was not arrested in connection with the sale until seven months later. In the interim, the defendant had no contact with police. After he was charged, the defendant petitioned the trial court for the Cl's identity, but the trial court denied the motion. At trial, the only witness for the prosecution about the sale was the undercover trooper. The defendant testified that he was the victim of mistaken identification, but was convicted. Ultimately, this Court reversed, and explained that under the facts of the case, the defendant had made out a claim of mistaken identification. The defendant had not met the undercover trooper 2d 496 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 1 . According to Appellee, he seeks to
holding that questioning of a juvenile by a principal in presence of a police officer did not constitute an interrogation because principal was sole questioner and was not acting as an agent for police holding that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant holding that the identity of a police agent had to be revealed where the defendant whose sole defense was entrapment sought to establish that the police agent had conceived planned and urged the perpetration of the crime holding that an undercover agent is not an accomplice as long as the agent does not bring about the crime but merely obtains evidence to be used against those engaged in crime holding that the employer was not the insurers agent