State v. Hall, 37365
| Decision Date | 19 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 37365,37365 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 268,185 Neb. 653 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Ewather HALL, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where petitioner's confessions were admitted in evidence and heard by the jury, petitioner was not prejudiced by admission of his codefendant's substantially similar confession where proper cautionary instructions were given.
Fred J. Montag, Omaha, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Melvin Kammerlohr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.
Petitioner Ewather Hall and a codefendant, Curtis Rowland, were charged with murder in the first degree while in the perpetration of a robbery. The crime was committed on December 9, 1961. In a joint trial, both defendants were found guilty by a jury and death penalties imposed upon both. The conviction of petitioner was affirmed by this court, but the sentence was modified to life imprisonment. See State v. Hall, 176 Neb. 295, 125 N.W.2d 918. Petitioner began this proceeding for post conviction relief in 1967, and a full evidentiary hearing was held. The district court denied relief.
The appeal here rests on Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Bruton established the principle that the admission, in a joint trial, of the confession of a codefendant, implicating the defendant in the crime may be violative of the defendant's right of cross-examination secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, despite the trial court's instructions to the jury that it should disregard the confession in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. Bruton was made retroactive in Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968).
In this case, both Hall and his codefendant gave confessions. Each confession established all material elements of the crime charged. The only material difference in the confessions of Hall and his codefendant involved which one struck the victim with a hammer and which one shot him with a gun. Any of the confessions established the guilt of both defendants as principals, regardless of who wielded which weapon.
Hall and his codefendant both refused to testify at the joint trial and the State introduced the confessions of both into evidence over objections. The court submitted the standard cautionary instructions, both orally during the course of the trial and in written form at the conclusion of the trial. The instructions and procedure were consistent with the existing law prior to Bruton.
The Supreme Court in Bruton recognized that there are situations where joint trials will continue to be proper and where an appropriate instructions is sufficiently protective. It said:
Since Bruton, courts have applied its principles on a case-by-case basis to determine where 'the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
...and the situation where a defendant who has remained silent at all times is inculpated by a codefendant's confession. State v. Hall, 185 Neb. 653, 178 N.W.2d 268 (1970); State v. Aiken, 75 Wash.2d 421, 452 P.2d 232 (1969); State v. Hopper, 253 La. 439, 218 So.2d 551 (1969); and Commonwealth......
-
Hall v. Wolff, 75-1894
...Nebraska. The denial of his petitioned relief by the District Court was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Hall, 185 Neb. 653, 178 N.W.2d 268 (1970). Habeas corpus relief was then sought in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. It was there asserted ......