People v. Vitello, 21 N.Y.2d 420 (1968)

When a co-defendant’s confession implicates another defendant, and the implication is severable from the confessor’s admission of guilt, the portion implicating the co-defendant must be redacted before the confession is admitted in a joint trial.

Summary

Vitello was convicted of a crime where a co-defendant’s confession, implicating Vitello, was admitted into evidence during a joint trial. The confession contained a separate paragraph implicating Vitello. Vitello’s counsel objected to the admission of the entire confession without redacting the portion involving Vitello. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Vitello’s conviction, holding that the trial court erred by admitting the unredacted confession because the portion implicating Vitello was easily severable from the co-defendant’s admission of guilt. The court emphasized that such an error is exacerbated when the prosecution refers to the inadmissible portion during summation.

Facts

Vitello was accused of being the driver for accomplices, Anfossi and Wright, at a crime scene. During the trial, the prosecution introduced Anfossi’s confession, which implicated Vitello as the driver. Vitello’s attorney requested that the court remove any references to Vitello in Anfossi’s statement. The trial court admitted Anfossi’s entire confession into evidence.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Vitello. Vitello appealed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision and reversed the conviction, ordering a new trial.

Issue(s)

1. Whether it was permissible to admit into evidence a co-defendant’s confession that implicated the defendant, when the portion implicating the defendant was severable from the co-defendant’s admission of guilt?

2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the delay in arraignment should be considered when determining the voluntariness of a confession?

Holding

1. Yes, because when it is possible to separate the portions of the confession in which the confessor admits his own guilt from his involvement of another, the confession should be redacted by eliminating the portion implicating the codefendant.

2. Yes, because unwarranted delay in arraignment should be considered by the jury in determining whether a confession or admission was voluntarily obtained.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a general instruction for the jury to only consider a confession against the confessor is acceptable when the implication of a co-defendant is inseparable from the confession, it is not the appropriate course of action when the implication is easily severable. Citing prior case law, the court emphasized the need to redact the portion of the confession that implicates the co-defendant when possible. The court noted that in this case, Anfossi’s implication of Vitello was in a separate paragraph from his admission of his own guilt, making redaction easily achievable. The court found the error was made worse by the prosecutor referencing the inadmissible portion of the confession during summation, arguing that it supported the claim that Vitello was involved. The court also found that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that the delay in arraignment should be considered when determining the voluntariness of the confession. The court stated that at the new trial, the procedure outlined in Jackson v. Denno (378 U.S. 368) will be followed, regarding the determination of the voluntariness of the confession (see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72). The court implied that the jury should be instructed to disregard the confession if they found it to be involuntary. The court reasoned that a confession obtained during an unreasonable delay might be coerced or otherwise unreliable.