Court Opinion

ID: 9765573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:07:40.8098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:11.660677
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TOAL:
I respectfully dissent. While I believe error was committed at the trial court level, I do not believe that error is preserved for our review. The majority’s opinion holds that the specific redaction created a Bruton violation. In my opinion, Frazier’s statement should not have been redacted to begin with. The effect of the majority’s opinion is to bring Bruton in through the back door. The purpose of the United States Supreme *608Court’s holding in Bruton was to prevent a defendant from being implicated by the statements or confession of a non-testifying co-defendant.
In my mind, there is nothing in Frazier’s statement that implicates Johnson. To the contrary, Frazier stated that he and “Knock” were seated in Baker’s car at the time of the shooting. Frazier’s description of Knock at the Jackson v. Denno hearing did not fit the description of the defendant. Frazier stated that Knock had braids. At that same hearing, Officer Dellinger admitted that when he interviewed Johnson shortly after the murders, “[h]is hair was cut short.” According to the trial testimony of Baker, Johnson and Frazier are cousins. However, Frazier’s testimony regarding the identity of Knock does not reflect a familial relationship. Frazier stated that Knock “stay on the back street near the man who sell juice and other things.... ” Referring to how he knew Knock, Frazier stated, “I just got out in June and he get out in August.” When asked directly by defendant’s counsel to whom he was referring when he used the name Knock, Frazier elusively stated that “[i]t’s a person,” and then denied that person was Johnson. Therefore, Frazier’s statement, in its original form, did not implicate Johnson. Had the full statement been before the jury, Officer Dellinger’s testimony would not have implicated Johnson. It was the redaction itself that implicated Johnson, and therefore I do not believe these facts square with Bruton.
During a pre-trial hearing, defense counsel motioned the judge to either sever the trial or to rule Frazier’s statement wholly inadmissible. The trial judge denied both these motions and instead chose to redact any reference to Knock contained in Frazier’s statement. Why defense counsel did not then object to the redaction of an exculpatory statement is a mystery; however, that mystery may be better solved in a post-conviction relief hearing. This issue is not preserved, nor does it properly raise a Bruton issue. Therefore, I would affirm the conviction.