In People v. Hambarian (1973) 31 Cal. App. 3d 643, 107 Cal. Rptr. 878, an informant told the police he had been in the defendant's residence four days earlier and had seen drugs and large amounts of currency. The police obtained a warrant and found various illegal drugs and cash. The defendant was charged with both manufacturing LSD and possession for sale of LSD, marijuana, and mescaline. This court held that, with respect to the possession charges, no disclosure of the informant's identity was required. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the informant might exonerate him by indicating that someone other than the defendant was at the residence when the informant was there four days before the search. At most, such a statement would tend to show the defendant did not have exclusive possession of the premises, but exclusive possession was not required to convict the defendant of possession for sale. (Hambarian, supra, 31 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 658-659.) On the other hand, the Hambarian court concluded, the informant might well have had information material to the manufacturing charge. Therefore, disclosure of the informant's identity should have been required. (Hambarian, supra, 31 Cal. App. 3d at p. 658.) Hambarian thus suggests that a charge of manufacturing, which may occur over an extended period of time, may stand on a different footing than possession, which can occur instantaneously. With respect to a manufacturing charge, information from an informant that the defendant was not the person engaged in manufacturing at some time prior to the arrest may be material to the issue of guilt, even though it would not be material to a charge of possession. The Court in Hambarian further concluded that, where the issue is raised on an appeal following a full trial rather than on an application for a pretrial writ of mandate or prohibition, the question whether the failure to disclose the informant's identity deprived the defendant of a fair trial must be resolved in the light not only of the pretrial proceedings, but also of the evidence at trial. (Hambarian, supra, 31 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 658-659.) In Hambarian, however, the manufacturing count was dismissed on the prosecution's motion before the case was submitted to the jury. (Hambarian, supra, 31 Cal. App. 3d at p. 660.) The court therefore did not have to consider the evidence at trial to determine that the lack of disclosure was not prejudicial.