People v. Pitts, 71 N.Y.2d 923 (1988)

The admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that incriminates the defendant at a joint trial violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even if the jury receives limiting instructions, and even if the defendant has also confessed; such an error requires a new trial unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary

Pitts and two codefendants were jointly tried for murder and robbery. Each defendant had confessed, but the confessions differed on each defendant’s role. Pitts’s motion to sever the trials was denied, and all three confessions were admitted with limiting instructions. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Pitts’s conviction after the Supreme Court decided Cruz v. New York, holding that the admission of the codefendants’ confessions was not harmless error because it presented a “reasonable possibility” that the jury was affected, especially regarding the voluntariness of Pitts’ confession. The court ordered a new trial.

Facts

Pitts and two codefendants, Waldo and Jones, were tried together for crimes arising from a robbery in which two people died. Each defendant gave written and videotaped confessions to the police. The confessions were similar in their description of the crime but differed on the role each defendant played. Waldo and Jones’s confessions identified Pitts as the shooter. Pitts’s confession portrayed himself as a lookout who was merely present when the second victim was shot.

Procedural History

Pitts moved to sever the trials, but the motion was denied. At the joint trial, the three confessions were admitted with limiting instructions. Each defendant was convicted of intentional murder, felony murder, robbery, and burglary. The Appellate Division reversed Pitts’s conviction for intentional murder, finding the codefendants’ statements did not sufficiently