Court Opinion

ID: 9862036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:58:38.048186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:57.094616
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. First, I cannot agree with the majority that it was error to permit the introduction of a confession of a codefendant when before being introduced in evidence all references to the other code-*259fendants, including Taggart, were redacted. It is obvious from the manner in which the redacted confession was submitted to the jury that it was in reference to McCall only.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the jury was not fully advised in this respect and that error thus occurred, it nevertheless would be harmless error. Al though McCall did not testify at trial, appellant's other codefendant, James Slagley, did testify and directly implicated appellant to a much greater degree than could have been surmised from McCall's confession. Assuming the jury did make such a connection with McCall's confession to appellant, such connection would have been no more than cumulative evidence in relation to that presented by Slagley. As conceded by the majority opinion, error which is "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" will not support a reversal..
I would affirm appellant's conviction.
KRAHULIK, J., concurs in result.