Opinion ID: 2374146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Redacting the Statement of Appellant?

Text: Outside of the presence of the jury, the Commonwealth brought to the court's attention the following problem. One of the detectives (referred to in part I) was scheduled to take the stand and testify concerning appellant's waiver of Miranda. When appellant had been asked if he wished to give a statement, appellant responded I won't talk to you about the murder, but I will talk to you about everything else. The prosecutor, fearing that a reference to other criminal activity could present problems, suggested that the question and/or answer be reworded. The court indicated it would permit the assistant district attorney to ask Was Mr. Lark prepared to speak about the robbery?, to which the witness would answer yes. Defense counsel initially opposed such measure but subsequently reluctantly countenanced the proposed redaction when the court inquired what counsel would suggest. (N.T. Trial pp. 3.3-3.7) Defense counsel renewed his concern at trial. The court responded by directing the detective to merely quote the appellant as saying I'll talk to you about anything. (Id. at 348-349) Appellant now contends that the redacted statement was prejudicial to him since the jury was given the impression that appellant was willing to talk to the police. Redaction in its broad sense indicates any revision or editing but in a strict legal sense has come to refer to the deletion, and any other change in a confession, to strike out any reference by one joint defendant to any co-defendant. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 474 Pa. 410, 411 n. 1, 378 A.2d 859 n. 1 (1977). See also Commonwealth v. Guess, 266 Pa.Superior Ct. 359, 404 A.2d 1330 (1979) and Commonwealth v. Young, 263 Pa.Superior Ct. 333, 397 A.2d 1234 (1979). We believe the use of the word redaction in the current situation is an appropriate use of the word even though we are not dealing with a reference by one defendant regarding a co-defendant. Johnson held that questions over redaction fell within the discretion of the trial court and must be decided on a case by case basis. We do not find any abuse of the trial court's discretion. Appellant does not indicate exactly what prejudice he suffered: though we may extrapolate that he feared the jury would find, if advised that appellant freely conversed, that any admission or confession was voluntary. If such was appellant's fear, we are not persuaded. As indicated in part I, we found appellant's confession was admissible; therefore any prejudice resulting therefrom must be endured, as prejudice alone will not block the admission of relevant and otherwise admissible evidence. [4]