Court Opinion

ID: 9632556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:19:01.168797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:18.413070
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge,
dissents:
I respectfully dissent. I find that the introduction into evidence of the statements, “My partner and I are charged with first degree murder. We killed an old bail bondsman.” was fundamentally prejudicial for two reasons.
The statement was made by the co-defendant of the appellant to a government informant posing as an inmate in the jail. The statement was therefore inadmissible against the co-defendant as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); U.S. v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). I do not agree the error is waived in Taylor’s case simply because he cannot assert the co-defendant’s Sixth Amendment right. I believe it is also prejudicial to Taylor.
The statement was also inadmissible because it was hearsay as to Taylor. This Court has previously reversed the conviction of a defendant where the co-defendant’s admission or confession, made after the commission of the crime, to a witness or police officer was accusatory of the defendant. Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599 (Okl.Cr.1980). There, as I believe to be the case here, without the hearsay testimony of the co-defendant, the independent evidence against Taylor would not have supported a conviction in a separate trial.