People v. Alicea, 51 N.Y.2d 760 (1980)
When a defendant’s confession is oral and a co-defendant’s confession is written, the key factor in determining admissibility under Bruton is whether the confessions are interlocking and whether the jury is properly instructed on the statement’s use.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a co-defendant’s written confession, which implicated the defendant, was admissible at their joint trial, considering the defendant’s confession was oral. The Court held that the co-defendant’s statement was admissible because the confessions were interlocking, the defendant confirmed the co-defendant’s statement, and the jury was instructed to only consider the co-defendant’s statement as binding on him unless they found the defendant adopted it. The Court found the prosecutor’s summation error, if any, was harmless due to the court’s offsetting instructions.
Facts
Alicea and Freeman were co-defendants in a criminal case. Freeman gave a written statement confessing to the crime, which implicated Alicea. Alicea gave an oral confession to the police, which also described the crime. At their joint trial, Freeman’s written statement was introduced as evidence. When Freeman’s statement was read to Alicea, Alicea stated, “Yes, that is what happened.”
Procedural History
The lower court convicted Alicea. Alicea appealed, arguing that the admission of Freeman’s written confession violated his rights under Bruton v. United States, because Freeman did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Alicea then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s written confession that implicates the defendant violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, when the defendant has also confessed orally and the confessions are interlocking?
Holding
No, because the defendant’s oral confession was interlocking with the co-defendant’s written confession, the defendant confirmed the co-defendant’s statement, and the jury was given limiting instructions regarding the use of the co-defendant’s statement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the admission of Freeman’s confession did not violate Alicea’s rights. The court distinguished this case from Bruton v. United States, relying on the exception articulated in People v. McNeil, and applied most recently in People v. Berzups. The court reasoned that the oral and written confessions were interlocking in all material respects, meaning they were substantially similar and consistent in describing the crime and the roles of each participant. Furthermore, Alicea stated,