Opinion ID: 1322575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements by Codefendant

Text: Holder asserts the trial court erred in allowing Doug Kelly, an investigator with the Greenville County Sheriff's Office, to relate what codefendant Martucci told him during interrogation. Martucci's redacted oral statement was allowed in to the effect that he had noticed some bruises on Bo, and he felt like she had been inflicting them. Holder contends her Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was denied, citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), because Martucci did not testify at trial. Holder alleges the redaction of Martucci's statement was insufficient in this case. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which was extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to confront witnesses against him, and this includes the right to cross-examine witnesses. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that, in a joint trial, admission of a non-testifying codefendant's statement that expressly inculpates the defendant violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause, as the use of only a limiting instruction is insufficient to remove any prejudice to the defendant. 391 U.S. at 136-37, 88 S.Ct. 1620. In Richardson, the Supreme Court remarked that the rule announced in Bruton is a narrow one that applies only when the statement implicates the defendant on its face; the rule does not apply where the statement becomes incriminating only when linked to other evidence introduced at trial, such as the defendant's own testimony. Richardson, 481 U.S. at 207-08, 107 S.Ct. 1702. The Supreme Court also noted Bruton can be complied with by the use of redaction: Even more significantly, evidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce. If limited to facially incriminating confessions, Bruton can be complied with by redactiona possibility suggested in that opinion itself. Id., at 134, n. 10, 88 S.Ct., at 1626, n. 10. If extended to confessions incriminating by connection, not only is that not possible, but it is not even possible to predict the admissibility of a confession in advance of trial. Id. at 208-09, 107 S.Ct. 1702. In Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998), a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court considered Bruton 's application when the redaction consists of replacement of the defendant's name with an obvious blank space, a symbol, or a word such as deleted. The Court noted the Richardson decision had limited the scope of Bruton to instances where the reference to the defendant was on the face of the statement. However, the majority in Gray held that a statement that substituted blanks and the word `delete' for the petitioner's proper name[] falls within the class of statements to which Bruton 's protections apply. Id. at 197, 118 S.Ct. 1151. The majority reasoned that one must look at the kind of inferences that are necessary to make a connection to the defendant, not the simple fact that there are inferences, to determine the applicability of Bruton. Id. at 196, 118 S.Ct. 1151. Richardson involved statements that did not directly refer to the defendant, but which became incriminating only when linked to other evidence developed at trial. Id. at 196, 118 S.Ct. 1151. However, the Gray Court stated [t]he inferences at issue here [in Gray ] involve statements that, despite redaction, obviously refer directly to someone, often obviously the defendant, and which involve inferences that a jury ordinarily could make immediately, even [if the statement was] the very first item introduced at trial. Id. Thus, the statements are protected under Bruton because in such instances the defendant is implicated almost as if there was a direct reference, and the connection does not depend on other evidence introduced at trial. Id. at 196-97, 118 S.Ct. 1151. Violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless error analysis. State v. Murphy, 270 S.C. 642, 644, 244 S.E.2d 36, 36-37 (1978) (observing where a wealth of evidence exists against the appellant, it eliminates any error in the admission of a codefendant's statement). A [C]onfrontation [C]lause error is harmless if the evidence is overwhelming and the violation so insignificant by comparison that we are persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the violation did not affect the verdict. State v. Vincent, 131 Wash.App. 147, 120 P.3d 120, 124 (2005). Considerations include the importance of the witness's testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. [3] Id. In the current appeal, Holder argues the substitution of her name with the pronoun she was insufficient to obscure her identity because the jury could readily determine that the statement referred to her as she was the only female defendant. We find the redaction in this case is analogous to that discussed in Gray because, despite the redaction, it was apparent that Martucci was referring to Holder, and this inference was one that could be readily made even without reliance on the other testimony developed at trial. Thus, we find the admission of the redacted statement violated Holder's rights under the Confrontation Clause as Martucci did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination. However, even though the redacted statement was admitted in error, we hold the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of the entire record. Holder admitted in her own statement to the police that she observed numerous instances where Martucci abused her child, including dunking him in the bathtub to stop him from crying while he gasped for air; striking him on the legs, back, and face; and taping his mouth shut, among other things. In her police statement, Holder stated Martucci's abuse of Bo began when Martucci lost his job and he began babysitting Bo. Holder also initially told hospital personnel that Bo was injured in an ATV accident, and then later admitted there was no accident. Holder was at home with Martucci and her son on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday prior to her son's death on Wednesday, July 17, 2002, so she was present during the time frame the pathologist testified the fatal injuries occurred. According to the medical authorities, Bo's distress would have been acute and impossible to ignore, and had Bo been taken to the hospital when the injuries occurred, he could have been saved. This failure to timely seek medical attention for Bo is evidence of extreme indifference to human life. Coworkers and neighbors also testified that they had seen bruising on Bo while he was in the company of Holder and that they had voiced their concerns to her. In fact, Holder was present when a neighbor took photographs to document the injuries. Holder also fabricated statements to coworkers and even to hospital personnel on the day of her son's death to hide the true source of Bo's injuries. Thus, Holder undoubtedly was aware of and was complicit in the severe abuse of her son, leading to his eventual death by beating at the age of two-and-a-half years. Thus, it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Holder was guilty of the offense of homicide by child abuse independent of the challenged statement so the error was harmless in the context of the entire record.