New York Law Review

Tag: Interlocking Confessions

  • People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61 (1985): Interlocking Confessions Exception to Bruton Rule

    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.

  • People v. Smalls, 53 N.Y.2d 413 (1981): Admissibility of Interlocking Confessions and Harmless Error Analysis

    People v. Smalls, 53 N.Y.2d 413 (1981)

    The admission of a co-defendant’s confession that is not truly interlocking and implicates the defendant in the crime, coupled with an erroneous jury instruction on the presumption of intent, can constitute reversible error unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Summary

    Defendants Smalls and McGee were convicted of felony murder. McGee’s confession, admitted at their joint trial, implicated Smalls as a knowing participant in the robbery, while Smalls’ own statement merely placed him at the scene without admitting to any criminal intent. The trial court also erroneously charged the jury on the presumption of intent. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Smalls’ conviction, finding that the admission of McGee’s confession violated Smalls’ right to confrontation under Bruton v. United States, and the error in the intent charge was not harmless. McGee’s conviction was affirmed because the court found the error in the intent charge to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of his intent.

    Facts

    Smalls and McGee, along with Mary Jenkins and Phillip Green, were involved in an attempted robbery of Pedro Pratt’s apartment. During the robbery, Pratt was shot and later died. McGee made statements to the police implicating himself and Smalls in the crime. Smalls also made statements, but these statements primarily placed him at the scene without explicitly admitting to participating in the robbery or being aware of its planning. Smalls’ motion to sever his trial from McGee’s was denied.

    Procedural History

    Smalls and McGee were jointly tried and convicted of felony murder. The Appellate Division affirmed their convictions. Smalls appealed, arguing that the admission of McGee’s confession violated his right to confrontation, as established in Bruton v. United States, and that the jury charge on intent was erroneous. The Court of Appeals reversed Smalls’ conviction and affirmed McGee’s conviction.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the admission of McGee’s confession at the joint trial violated Smalls’ right to confrontation, considering that McGee did not testify and Smalls’ own confession was not truly interlocking.

    2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of their acts.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because McGee’s confession implicated Smalls directly as a knowing participant in the robbery, while Smalls’ statement merely placed him at the scene. This discrepancy made the confessions not truly interlocking, violating Smalls’ right to confront witnesses against him.

    2. Yes, the charge was erroneous, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to McGee. As to Smalls, the Court did not determine if it was harmless, as his conviction was reversed on other grounds.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the Bruton rule, which prohibits the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that implicates the defendant, was violated because McGee’s confession directly implicated Smalls, while Smalls’ statement did not admit to the crime. The Court found that the statements were not truly “interlocking” because of the significant difference in their content regarding Smalls’ participation and intent. The Court stated, “the danger is great that the jury might have resolved these ambiguities by reference-to McGee’s statement and its indication that Smalls was informed of the details of the robbery.” This error was deemed not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence against Smalls was not overwhelming.

    Regarding the jury charge on intent, the Court acknowledged that such a charge was erroneous under Sandstrom v. Montana. However, the Court held that a harmless error analysis is proper where there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s intent. The Court found that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to McGee because there was overwhelming evidence of his intent to commit the robbery, citing McGee’s planning of the robbery with Jenkins and Green, and his own statements indicating his intent. The court noted, “a person is presumed to intend that which he actually does,” was an incorrect statement of law.

  • People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550 (1969): Admissibility of Interlocking Confessions in Joint Trials

    People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550 (1969)

    The rule in Bruton v. United States, which prohibits the admission of a co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant in a joint trial, does not apply where the defendant has also made a full and voluntary confession that is substantially similar to the co-defendant’s confession.

    Summary

    Defendants McNeil and others were convicted of felony murder. Each defendant had voluntarily made detailed confessions implicating themselves and the others. At trial, these confessions were admitted with limiting instructions that each confession was only to be considered against the declarant. The defendants argued on appeal that admitting the confessions violated their rights under Bruton v. United States. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Bruton is inapplicable when each defendant has made a full and voluntary confession that is almost identical to the confessions of their co-defendants. The court reasoned that the devastating risk of relying on a co-defendant’s confession is absent when the jury has also heard the defendant’s own confession.

    Facts

    Defendants McNeil, along with other co-defendants, were indicted and tried for the murder of a New York City Police Detective Donald Rolker.
    Following their apprehension, each defendant voluntarily provided detailed confessions implicating themselves and each other in the murder.
    The confessions were substantially similar in their accounts of the crime.

    Procedural History

    At trial, the defendants’ confessions were admitted into evidence. The trial court gave limiting instructions to the jury, stating that each confession should only be considered against the defendant who made it.
    The jury convicted McNeil and the other defendants of felony murder but could not reach a verdict for one co-defendant.
    The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments of conviction.
    The defendants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by permission of a judge of that court.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the rule in Bruton v. United States, which prohibits the admission of a co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant in a joint trial, applies when each defendant has made a full and voluntary confession that is substantially similar to the confessions of their co-defendants.

    Holding

    No, because the rationale of Bruton is inapplicable when each defendant has made a full and voluntary confession that is almost identical to the confessions of their co-defendants.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished the case from Bruton v. United States, where the Supreme Court held that admitting a co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant at a joint trial violates the defendant’s right to cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment, even with limiting instructions.
    The Court of Appeals relied on the reasoning in United States ex rel. Catanzaro v. Mancusi, which held that the Bruton rule does not apply when the defendant himself has confessed and his confession interlocks with and supports the confession of the co-defendant. The court quoted Catanzaro: “Where the jury has heard not only a codefendant’s confession but the defendant’s own confession no such ‘devastating’ risk attends the lack of confrontation as was thought to be involved in Bruton.”
    The court reasoned that the limiting instructions were sufficient to protect the defendants’ rights in this case because each defendant had already confessed to the crime. The risk that the jury would improperly rely on a co-defendant’s confession was minimized because the jury also had before it each defendant’s own confession, which was substantially similar.
    The court found the defendants’ other contentions to be without merit and affirmed the judgments of conviction.