Opinion ID: 2639110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Admitting into Evidence the Codefendants' Redacted Statements?

Text: Next, Mays, in his pro se brief, argues that the trial court erred by allowing the codefendants' redacted statements to be admitted into evidence at trial. However, none of the codefendants' statements are included in the record on appeal, making it impossible for this court to review Mays' claim of error. Furthermore, the same argument was considered on its merits and rejected in White, 275 Kan. at 591-95. The White court first discussed the holding of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620 (1968), that a defendant is deprived of his right of confrontation when the facially incriminating confession of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant. 275 Kan. at 591. However, use of such a confession was upheld where it was redacted to remove all references to a codefendant in Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211, 95 L.Ed.2d 176, 107 S.Ct. 1702 (1987). 275 Kan. at 592. Accordingly, this court noted its own previous holding that `redaction of a confession is proper if any suggestion of a codefendant's involvement in the crime charged can be eliminated from the statement, but generally an edited statement should not be admitted if it explicitly suggests the participation of the complaining defendant.' 275 Kan. at 593 (quoting State v. Swafford, 257 Kan. 1099, 1102, 913 P.2d 196 [1996]). The White court then discussed proper and improper methods of redaction and noted that the digital editing process used in the case obviated many of the problems caused by other less sophisticated redaction methods. 275 Kan. at 593-95. The court concluded: The redacted statements eliminate all references to White's existence, do not direct the jury's attention to White, do not facially incriminate White, and do not violate the holding in Bruton. The district court did not err in admitting the redacted statements of White's codefendants. 275 Kan. at 595. Mays' argument that the trial court erred in admitting the redacted statements of his codefendants is similarly rejected.