People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61 (1985)

The interlocking confession exception to the Bruton rule allows the admission of a codefendant’s confession at a joint trial, even if the codefendant does not testify, provided the defendant’s own confession is substantially similar and covers the major elements of the crime.

Summary

Eulogio Cruz and Belton Brims were convicted of murder in separate cases but tried jointly with codefendants. They appealed, arguing that the admission of their codefendants’ confessions violated their rights under Bruton v. United States. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the confessions were “interlocking” because they were substantially similar and covered all the major elements of the crimes. The court reasoned that because the defendants had already confessed, the codefendants’ statements did not have a “devastating effect” and the interlocking confession exception to the Bruton rule applied.

Facts

In People v. Cruz, Eulogio Cruz and his brother, Benjamin, were charged with felony murder. Eulogio confessed to Norberto, a friend, that he and Benjamin intended to rob a gas station. During a struggle, the attendant shot Eulogio, and Benjamin then shot the attendant. Benjamin later gave a video-taped confession to the police. Norberto testified at trial about Eulogio’s confession.

In People v. Brims, Belton Brims was convicted of murder and other charges related to a burglary and homicide. Brims confessed to his cousin, Willie Brims, and to a fellow inmate, John Riegel, about planning the robbery with the victim’s daughter and killing the victims. The daughter, Sheryl Sohn, also confessed to police about helping Brims and Sheffield enter her parents’ home. Willie Brims and John Riegel testified at trial about Brims’s confessions to them. Sheryl Sohn’s confession was also admitted into evidence.

Procedural History

Both Cruz and Brims moved for severance, arguing that the admission of their codefendants’ confessions violated their rights under Bruton. The trial courts denied the motions. Cruz and Brims were convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, and the cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession violates a defendant’s right to confrontation under Bruton v. United States when the defendant has also confessed to the crime?
2. Whether the interlocking confession exception to the Bruton rule applies when the confessions differ in reliability?

Holding

1. No, because the interlocking confession exception to the Bruton rule applies when the defendant’s own confession is substantially similar to the codefendant’s and covers the major elements of the crime. Appropriate limiting instructions are sufficient to protect the defendant’s rights in such cases.
2. Yes, because the interlocking confession exception applies even when the confessions differ in reliability, as long as they are substantially similar regarding the material facts of the crime.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the confessions in both cases “interlocked” because they were substantially similar and covered all the major elements of the crimes. The court explained that the Bruton rule prohibits the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession because of the substantial risk that the jury will consider it against the defendant, despite limiting instructions. However, this risk is minimized when the defendant has also confessed, because the codefendant’s statement is no more inculpating than the defendant’s own. The court emphasized that the confessions need not be identical, but must be “essentially the same” as to motive, plot, and execution of the crimes.

The court rejected the argument that the interlocking confession exception does not apply when the confessions differ in reliability. It noted that prior decisions have tolerated differences in scope and reliability, such as one confession being oral and the other written, or one being made to police officers and the other to lay witnesses. The court stated that credibility is a question for the jury once admissibility is determined by the court.

Regarding the defendants’ fair trial claims, the court held that a defendant’s right to a fair trial is not impaired when there is substantial independent evidence of guilt or when the defendant has made substantially identical inculpatory admissions. The court concluded that the trial courts properly denied severance because there was no substantial risk that the jury would use the codefendants’ statements to fill gaps in the evidence against the defendants. The court emphasized that the primary concern is whether the joint trial prevented the defendant from presenting exculpatory evidence or resulted in substantial prejudice by filling gaps in the evidence against him.