People v. Mas, 68 N.Y.2d 683 (1986)

When a co-defendant’s confession implicating the defendant is introduced at a joint trial, redaction of the confession must effectively protect the defendant from prejudice; if the redaction is compromised by other evidence or judicial statements, a new trial is required to protect the defendant’s right to confrontation.

Summary

Mas was convicted of robbery. Prior to trial, he moved for severance from his co-defendant, Lopez, whose confession implicated him. The trial judge denied the motion, expecting redaction would suffice. However, a slip of the tongue by the judge and the introduction of evidence linking Mas to the co-defendant’s statement undermined the redaction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed Mas’s conviction, holding that the compromised redaction violated his right to confrontation. The court reasoned that the errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given weaknesses in the other evidence against Mas.

Facts

Mas and Lopez were charged with robbery. Lopez confessed to the crime but implicated Mas. Mas moved for severance, arguing that the introduction of Lopez’s confession would prejudice him. The trial court denied severance, believing redaction of Lopez’s confession would protect Mas’s rights. During the trial, the judge mistakenly used Mas’s name when referring to Lopez’s taped statement. Further, the prosecution introduced evidence linking Mas to a nickname mentioned in Lopez’s statement. A witness identified Mas as one of the robbers, but only positively identified him 16 months after the incident. When arrested three days later, Mas was in a car with others, and the murder weapon was found at his feet.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted Mas. Mas appealed, arguing that the compromised redaction of Lopez’s confession violated his right to confrontation. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Mas appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court’s failure to grant a severance or adequately protect Mas from prejudice through the redaction of his co-defendant’s confession, when that redaction was undermined by subsequent evidence and judicial statements, violated Mas’s right to confrontation.

Holding

Yes, because the redaction of the co-defendant’s confession was rendered ineffective by the judge’s comment and the introduction of additional evidence, thus violating Mas’s right to confrontation and warranting a new trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The court held that the redaction’s effectiveness was negated by the trial judge’s slip of the tongue and the introduction of evidence linking Mas to a nickname mentioned in the co-defendant’s statement. This compromised the redaction to the point where it no longer adequately protected Mas’s right to confrontation. The court cited People v. Jackson, noting similarities in how redaction efforts were undermined by subsequent events at trial. The court also referenced Bruton v. United States, emphasizing that limiting instructions are not always a sufficient substitute for the right to cross-examination. The court stated, “[L]imiting instructions with respect to the codefendant’s confession were no ‘adequate substitute for [defendant’s] constitutional right of cross-examination.’” The court rejected the argument that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While a witness identified Mas, the identification occurred 16 months after the crime and other individuals were present in the car with Mas when he was arrested with the murder weapon. Given these factors, the court could not conclude that the denial of Mas’s right to confront his co-defendant was harmless. The court emphasized that “[a] defendant is entitled to a new trial if events or evidence introduced during the trial materially reduce the probability that the redaction effectively afforded the protection it was intended to provide.”