Court Opinion

ID: 9679882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:12:07.11+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:22.947736
License: Public Domain

JOHNSTONE, Justice,
Concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion, except for its holding that a trial court is not required to give an admonition to the jury when it admits the redacted confession of a non-testifying co-defendant in a joint trial.
The admission into evidence of a party’s own statement against that party is not excluded by the hearsay rule. KRE 801A. But when used against a co-defendant as substantive evidence, it remains inadmissible hearsay and its introduction into evidence as such violates the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1706-07, 95 L.Ed.2d 176, 185 (1987). In my view, the Bruton line of cases establish a rule of admissibility for party admissions of non-testifying co-defendants in joint trials. As shown below, the giving of an admonition by the trial court is an essential component of the rule and, thus, a necessary predicate to admissibility.
The Bruton Court rejected the argument that giving an admonishment in connection with the admission of a confession by a non-testifying co-defendant adequately protects a defendant’s constitutional rights:
[T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating prejudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial....
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135-36, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1628, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, 485 (1968).
*405The Richardson Court expressly distinguished Bruton on the effectiveness of an admonition to the jury when the admonition is given in connection with a redacted confession:
The rule that juries are presumed to follow their instructions is a pragmatic one, rooted less in absolute certitude that the presumption is true than in the belief that it represents a reasonable practical accommodation of the interests of the state and the defendant in the criminal justice process. On the precise facts of Bruton, involving a facially incriminating confession, we found that accommodation inadequate. [T]he calculus changes when confessions that do not name the defendant are at issue.... We hold that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession with a proper limiting instmction when ... the confession is redacted to eliminate not only the defendant’s name, but any reference to his or her existence.
Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211, 107 S.Ct. at 1709, 95 L.Ed.2d at 188 (emphasis added).
Under Richardson, the admissibility of a confession by a non-testifying co-defendant turns on both redaction and the giving of a proper limiting instruction. A limiting instruction is required to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights. This requirement makes KRE 105 inapplicable to this issue.
As stated by the majority, KRE 105 does specifically state that an admonition is to be given “upon request” when evidence is admitted against one party and not another. But KRE 105 is a general rule. The Bmton line of cases establish a specific rule for the introduction of the confession of a non-testifying co-defendant. One of the most basic rules of statutory construction is that when “two statutes deal with the same subject matter, one in a broad, general way and the other specifically, the specific statute prevails.” DeStock No. U, Inc. v. Logsdon, Ky., 993 S.W.2d 952, 959 (1999) (emphasis added).
Granted, we do not have two statutes in this case. Nor do we even have two codified rales. But both KRE 105 and the Bmton rule deal with the same subject matter, i.e., the admissibility of evidence against one party and not another. Further, the Bruton rule is not mere common law; it is a constitutional mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Bmton rule is more specific as to the subject matter at issue than is KRE 105, I would hold that a trial court must give an admonition as a necessary predicate to the admissibility under Bruton and Richardson of a redacted confession by a non-testifying co-defendant, unless the defendant requests that an admonition not be given.
STUMBO, J., joins this concurring opinion.