Opinion ID: 1133464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Bruton Issue

Text: Manard's confession had to be redacted for use at trial under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L. Ed.2d 476, 88 S. Ct. 1620 (1968). Bruton holds the admission of a defendant's confession implicating another codefendant at trial is prejudicial error when the codefendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the confessing defendant. 391 U.S. at 137. We followed Bruton in State v. Rodriquez, 226 Kan. 558, 601 P.2d 686 (1979). We have allowed courts to redact incriminating statements for use in joint trials. State v. Purdy, 228 Kan. 264, Syl. ¶ 2, 615 P.2d 131 (1980) (the introduction into evidence of a defendant's redacted statement is proper unless the redaction distorts the statement). In State v. Rakestraw, 255 Kan. 35, 871 P.2d 1274 (1994), a redacted confession was used at trial. Rakestraw was convicted and his codefendant acquitted. We reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the redaction distorted Rakestraw's actual statement. A redacted statement is impermissibly distorted when the complete statement is exculpatory and the redacted statement is inculpatory. 255 Kan. at 45-46. The analysis of the Bruton issue here is advanced by setting out the complete and redacted statements. The complete statement from Officer Vargo's preliminary hearing testimony is set out below: Q. [PROSECUTOR] Okay. What did he tell you? A. [OFFICER VARGO] He saidwe first got into the conversation I said that I didn't think he had shot anyone, and he said no he didn't shoot anyone. He didn't want to go down for something someone else did. Q. Okay. What else did he say? A. I asked him if he was there when Mr. England got shot. He stated yes, he was. He then stated that, he said, Yardley shot the dude', and Yardley fucked me.' .... Q. He told you that he thought, using his words, that Yardley had fucked him?' A. Yeah. Q. Did he elaborate on that? A. He just, he said that a lot through the whole time he was there talking to him and he basically was, he said he didn't want to go to jail for the rest of his life for something someone else did. Q. Did Mr. Manard explain to you what they were doing at the scene of the shooting? A. He stated to me that later in the conversation he explained why they were trying to get a car. Q. Okay. He said they were trying to get a car? A. Yeah, to get back to Edgerton. Q. Okay. And did he tell you how they were planning on getting a car? A. He told me that they had a plan to get a car back to Edgerton, they were going to wait at a gas station and wait until someone went inside and left their keys in their car or their car running to pay for their gas around there, were going to jump in a car and just take off. And he said Yardley had the gun, was supposed to keep it tucked in his waistband. Q. Uh-huh. A. And if anybody gave him a problem Yardley was to lift his shirt and show the gun so if they had a problem with someone refusing to give him a car. Q. In other words, he indicated to you the gun was there, they were to use the gun for intimidation? A. Right. .... Q. So then what happened? A. That was later on in the conversation. He said that the first part of the conversation we talked about, I asked him after he told me I asked him what happened when he had told me that Yardley had shot the dude. He said that he was trying to get the car in gear and Yardley already had the gun out and it was cocked and while he was trying to get the car in gear Yardley opened the door and tried to get the guy out and the guy tried to kick Yardley. Then he said he heard a lady scream at him and he heard the shot and looked over and saw the man fall down and the blood. He said he yelled at Yardley, Why did you shoot him?' And then he told me it wasn't supposed to happen that way. Q. So, if we could back up a little bit. Did he indicate to you who got in the car first? A. No. From what I gathered he did because he was trying to get the car in gear. Q. So, he sits in the car, he's trying to get the car in gear? A. Uh-huh. Q. Did he indicate whether he was having any difficulty getting the car in gear? A. Yeah. I believe he said he was trying to get it in gear. Q. While he's trying to get it in gear what's happening with Yardley and the guy that got shot? A. He's arguing with the guy and the guy kicks him and the lady started yelling at him from somewhere and he heard the shots and looked over and saw the guy fall in the blood on his chest. Q. Then did he say after that Yardley got in or how did that go? A. We didn't really get into that part of it. Q. Did he say what happened after that? A. I asked him why did he think Yardley shot the man and he said it was because he said he kicked him. And, I said, I asked him if they were taking any drugs or alcohol and he said that no they were both straight. Q. Did he indicate to you what they did with the car? A. No. The redacted form of the statement heard by the jury is set out as follows: Q. [PROSECUTOR] Okay. And during the course of your conversations with Mr. Manard on Monday the 24th did he indicate to you whether or not he wanted to make a `deal?' A. [OFFICER VARGO] Yes, he did. Q. Okay. Did he indicate to you whether or not he was present during the homicide that occurred on June 13th in your city? A. Yes, he did. Q. And did he say he was present? A. Yes, he did. Q. And did Mr. Manard indicate to you what role he played regarding that automobile? A. He indicated that he was the driver of the vehicle. Manard, relying on Rakestraw, argues that his statement was distorted because exculpatory statements were omitted from the redacted version, leaving only the inculpatory statements. Manard misapplies Rakestraw. Rakestraw suggests a reversal only when the entire statement is exculpatory to the offense charged and the defendant is deprived of a fair trial. See 255 Kan. at 45-46. Here, Manard's entire statement was not exculpatory. His defense was lack of intent to rob or kill anyone. Manard maintained that the original plan was to steal a car when the victim went inside to pay for gas. However, Manard also told Officer Vargo that Yardley had the gun, [a]nd if anybody gave him a problem Yardley was to lift his shirt and show the gun so if they had a problem with someone refusing to give him a car. That statement is inculpatory to a charge of aggravated robbery and directly refutes Manard's defense of no intent. Thus, his entire statement was not exculpatory to the crimes charged.