Commonwealth v. James
66 A.3d 771
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant Willie James was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime.
- The Confrontation Clause issue centered on admission of co-defendant Singletary’s redacted confession implicating Appellant when linked with other trial evidence.
- Cunningham’s prior statements identifying Appellant as shooter and Singletary as driver were admitted as substantive evidence.
- Singletary’s redacted confession replaced Appellant’s references with the neutral term "the other guy" and the trial court gave cautionary jury instructions.
- During closing, the district attorney misspoke, potentially linking Appellant to Singletary via misnaming, which the defense challenged as Bruton error.
- Trial court denied mistrial; judge instructed jury to consider evidence separately for each defendant and to not equate Singletary’s statement with Appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redacted co-defendant confession violated Bruton | Appellant contends redacted confession still implicated him when linked with Cunningham’s statements. | Commonwealth argues linkage is contextual, not facial inculpation, so Bruton does not apply. | No Bruton violation; redaction plus cautionary instructions adequate. |
| Whether prosecutor's closing remark negated redaction and violated Bruton | Prosecutor’s misstatement improperly bridged redacted confession to Appellant. | Misstatement was isolated, obscured, and did not directly implicate Appellant beyond admitted evidence. | Not a Bruton violation; curative instructions and context preserved fairness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (non-testifying co-defendant confession implicating defendant triggers Bruton)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted confession can be admissible with limiting instruction if not facially incriminating)
- Commonwealth v. Travers, 768 A.2d 845 (Pa. 2001) (permitted contextual implication via redacted co-defendant confession)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 A.2d 147 (Pa. 2007) (prosecutor’s misstatement may be addressed; redaction protected by curative instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 22 A.3d 210 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutor's commentary not egregious enough to extend Bruton; contextual implication ok with cautions)