Disclosure of an informant's identity requires "balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense." Disclosure "must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors" State v. DuBray, 2003 MT 255, ¶ 110, 317 Mont. 377, 77 P.3d 247 (quoting Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53, 62, 77 S. Ct. 623, 628-29 (1957)).
Under the balancing test, the defendant bears the burden of showing the need for disclosure, and the need must be sufficient to override the government's interest in protecting the name of the informant. State v. DuBray, 2003 MT 255, ¶ 112, 317 Mont. 377, 77 P.3d 247.
We review a district court's determination of whether or not to disclose the identity of a confidential informant for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Ayers, 2003 MT 114, ¶ 62, 315 Mont. 395, 68 P.3d 768; State v. Seaman, 236 Mont. 466, 474, 771 P.2d 950, 955 (1989); State v. Coates, 233 Mont. 303, 305, 759 P.2d 999, 1000-01 (1988), overruled on other grounds by Porter v. State, 2002 MT 319, ¶ 13, 313 Mont. 149, 60 P.3d 951.