Com. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 28 October 1977
• Citation: 474 Pa. 410,378 A.2d 859
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Raymond R. JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 859

378 A.2d 859

474 Pa. 410

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Raymond R. JOHNSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 23, 1977.

Decided Oct. 28, 1977.

[474 Pa. 411] John H. Chronister, Public Defender, York, for appellant.

Donald L. Reihart, Dist. Atty., York, for appellee.

Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and PACKEL, JJ.

OPINION

PACKEL, Judge.

The potential use or abuse of redaction ¹ to permit the use of confessions of co-defendants in a joint criminal trial was pointed out in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Counsel for the appellant refers to the absence in this jurisdiction of appellate authority dealing with redaction, and asks the Court to hold that redaction should not be allowed because it can never be done in such a manner as to protect a defendant. In the alternative, the request is made that we should hold that the manner in which the redaction was done in this case was actually prejudicial.

The appellant had been convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In a joint trial the written confession of a co-defendant was admitted in evidence after all its references to defendant were eliminated.

It is well-settled that redaction can be an appropriate method of protecting defendant's rights under the Bruton decision. The possible use of redaction is mentioned in Bruton itself. Other courts have permitted this procedure. United States v. Brown, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 490 F.2d 758 (1974); Coltrane v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 295, 418 F.2d 1131 (1969) and Oliver v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 302, 335 F.2d 724 (1964). The court in Brown, supra, 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 210, 490 F.2d at 778 stated:

"It has been recognized that an efficient method of avoiding unnecessary prejudice where the declarant's state of mind is otherwise relevant is to delete the offensive portions of the statement. . . . Presumably if the statement could not be so altered without completely losing its sense it must be excluded in toto. . . .

"As with most evidentiary questions, especially those involving 'balancing,' substantial deference to the trial judge's discretion must necessarily be afforded."

We agree. The basic theory of redaction seems sound. If a confession can be edited so that it retains its narrative integrity and yet in no way refers to defendant, then use of it does not violate the principles of Bruton. The practical application of the theory may be difficult and in many cases it may be decided that separate trials are necessary. However, this kind of determination must be made on a case by case basis.

In this particular case appellant contends that omitting words naming him from a statement telling who went upstairs was prejudicial to Sue Grendall, since it makes it appear that she went upstairs alone. In the first place, the confession was admissible against Sue Grendall so it rightly should inculpate her. In the second place, appellant lacks standing to object to a violation of his co-defendant's rights, if any occurred. Finally, since Sue Grendall was acquitted, this would be harmless error, if it were error at all. This point was raised originally by Sue Grendall's attorney, apparently to be used as a basis for an appeal if she had been convicted. It is obviously inappropriate as a basis for an appeal by the appellant.

The appellant also objects that the part of the original confession that originally read "Chinese, Derick, Kenny and myself were upstairs in my bedroom planning what to do" was redacted by the deletion of "Chinese" which was the nickname of the appellant. The contention is that with only three of the four people going upstairs the jury would wonder what, if anything, the fourth person was doing. The assertion of the jury's wonderment on this score had no relevancy to any issue in the case. In order for a redacted confession to be...