Opinion ID: 2570511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of White's Redacted Statement

Text: Next, White contends that the meaning of his own statement was substantially changed by the process of redaction. White fails to detail in his brief exactly what editing caused distortion, but complains generally that the exculpatory self defense aspect was largely lost. The consequence, he argues, is that he was denied the ability to present his theory of defense and, therefore, under the holding of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297, 93 S. Ct. 1038 (1973), was denied his right to a fair trial. This argument is without merit. In State v. Purdy, 228 Kan. 264, 615 P.2d 131 (1980), we held that [t]he introduction into evidence of a defendant's redacted statement is proper unless the redaction procedure distorts the statement. 228 Kan. 264, Syl. ¶ 2. In that case, we determined that removing references to a codefendant in order to comply with Bruton did not distort the statement. In contrast, in State v. Rakestraw, 255 Kan. 35, 871 P.2d 1274 (1994), we reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the redaction did distort Rakestraw's actual statement. This court stated: If the complete statement is exculpatory and the redacted statement is inculpatory, we must conclude that the redacted statement distorts the meaning of the complete statement. Our analysis need go no further. Under the facts of this case, we conclude the admission of the redacted statement over the defendant's objection distorted the meaning of the defendant's statement. He was denied a fair trial. We reverse and remand the case for a new trial. 255 Kan. at 45-46. Subsequently, we applied the holding in Rakestraw when another appellant made the same argument as is made here by White. We stated: [The appellant] 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. State v. Manard, 267 Kan. 20, 29, 978 P.2d 253 (1999). Similarly, in this case, White's entire statement was not exculpatory and it did not become inculpatory through the editing process. Nor was the meaning of White's statement distorted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of White's statement or in refusing to grant a severance on the ground the redaction process denied him a fair trial.