People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 15 November 1985
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 177

496 N.Y.S.2d 177

115 A.D.2d 316

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond JOHNSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Nov. 15, 1985.

Robert Ciesielski, by Charles Katz, Buffalo, for appellant.

Richard Arcara, by Lisa Rodwin, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before HANCOCK, J.P., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, PINE and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant and his co-defendant brother (see People v. Gerald Johnson, 89 A.D.2d 814, 453 N.Y.S.2d 539, lv. denied 58 N.Y.2d 693, 458 N.Y.S.2d 1032, 444 N.E.2d 1019) were jointly tried and convicted for the felony murder of a woman during the course of a burglary at her home. Following a pretrial Huntley hearing, a confession that defendant made to police following his arrest was found to be voluntary and admissible at trial. The court denied defendant's pretrial motion for a severance and permitted the statements of both defendant and his co-defendant brother to be received in evidence at their joint trial on the basis that the statements paralleled each other in many respects. On appeal, defendant contends that denial of his motion for a separate trial constituted reversible error. We disagree.

The right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him (U.S.Const., 6th Amend.; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6) is not violated when one of several defendants has made a full and voluntary confession which is almost identical to the confession of his implicated co-defendant (People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550, 552, 301 N.Y.S.2d 503, 249 N.E.2d 383, cert. denied 396 U.S. 937, 90 S.Ct. 282, 24 L.Ed.2d 236, see also, Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713; People v. Smalls, 55 N.Y.2d 407, 449 N.Y.S.2d 696, 434 N.E.2d 1063; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 425, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155; People v. Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181, 413 N.Y.S.2d 118, 385 N.E.2d 1046, cert. den. sub nom. Miner v. New York, 443 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. 3103, 61 L.Ed.2d 876; People v. Ridgeway, 101 A.D.2d 555, 563-564, 476 N.Y.S.2d 940, affd. 64 N.Y.2d 952, 488 N.Y.S.2d 641, 477 N.E.2d 1095). Here, defendant's confession is so substantially similar to the confession of his co-defendant brother that the "interlocking confession" exception to the rule pronounced in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, clearly applies. We reject defendant's argument that this Bruton exception should not apply where, as here, the defendant and co-defendant both claim that...