People v. Boone, 22 N.Y.2d 476 (1968)

The admission of a co-defendant’s confession implicating another defendant at a joint trial, even with cautionary instructions, violates the implicated defendant’s right to confrontation if the confession cannot be effectively redacted.

Summary

Defendants Boone and Brandon were convicted of first-degree murder. Brandon’s conviction was affirmed, holding that Miranda v. Arizona did not apply retroactively to trials commenced before June 13, 1966. Boone’s conviction was reversed due to the admission of Brandon’s confession, which implicated Boone, violating Boone’s right to cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause as established in Bruton v. United States, which was applied retroactively. The court clarified that redaction of confessions in joint trials is permissible only if it can be done effectively without prejudice to either defendant.

Facts

Thomas Brooks was found murdered in his apartment. His body was bound and gagged. The cause of death was fractures of the jaw and hyoid bone, and asphyxiation. A portable television set was stolen from the apartment and pawned by Louis Cook. Cook testified that Boone and Brandon asked him to pawn the TV. Adele McClinton corroborated Cook’s testimony, stating she saw Brandon carrying a TV and that Boone asked her to pawn it. Ernest Clark testified that Boone offered to sell him a pawn ticket for the TV, which Clark then redeemed. Brandon made a formal confession implicating himself and Boone. Boone moved for severance, which was denied.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Boone and Brandon of first-degree murder. Both defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which affirmed the trial court’s judgments. Boone and Brandon then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Miranda v. Arizona applies to trials commenced before June 13, 1966, if the admission of the confession occurs after that date?
2. Whether the admission of Brandon’s confession at a joint trial with Boone, implicating Boone in the crime, violated Boone’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, even with cautionary instructions to the jury?

Holding

1. No, because the Supreme Court in Johnson v. New Jersey made it clear that Miranda applies only to trials commenced after June 13, 1966.
2. Yes, because the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruton v. United States, which is applied retroactively, held that the admission of a co-defendant’s confession implicating another defendant violates the non-confessing defendant’s right to cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause.

Court’s Reasoning

The court addressed Brandon’s argument regarding the retroactivity of Miranda, stating that Johnson v. New Jersey and People v. McQueen established a clear cut-off date of June 13, 1966, for the application of Miranda. The court reasoned that Brandon’s trial commenced before this date; therefore, the confession was properly admitted under the then-existing legal standards. The court rejected Brandon’s due process and equal protection arguments, citing the Supreme Court’s statement that there were no constitutional impediments to the chosen cut-off date.

Regarding Boone’s appeal, the court recognized that Brandon’s confession, which implicated Boone, was admitted into evidence with cautionary instructions. However, the court relied on Bruton v. United States, which held that such a procedure violates the non-confessing defendant’s right to confrontation. The court noted that Bruton was to be applied retroactively per Roberts v. Russell. The court rejected the argument that Boone waived his right to object because his motion for severance preserved the issue for review, citing People v. La Belle. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the evidence against Boone, absent Brandon’s confession, presented a close question for the jury, and therefore the admission of the confession was prejudicial error. The court clarified that Bruton does not mandate separate trials in all cases but rather condemns the specific practice of admitting an implicating confession with cautionary instructions when the confession cannot be effectively redacted. The court stated, “It would thus seem that, where the confession can be effectively redacted without prejudice to declarant or nondeclarant, the confession may be used at a joint trial.”