People v. Washington
222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Defendant Michael Shane Washington, a Bloods gang member, was charged with first-degree murder after shooting a 20-year-old at Avalon Gardens; the jury convicted and sentenced him to 51 years to life.
- Two codefendants, Keon Scott and Kevin Kendricks (recorded while jailed together), made recorded statements implicating themselves and defendant; recordings were admitted against them but the trial court instructed the jury not to consider them against Washington.
- Defendant testified and offered a defensive theory (self-defense/imperfect self-defense); jury found him guilty and found firearm and gang enhancements true.
- On appeal defendant argued trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to sever his trial from his codefendants, asserting severance was required under Aranda/Bruton, by due process, and under Penal Code §1098.
- The core legal question was whether Crawford’s limitation of the Confrontation Clause to testimonial statements narrows the Aranda/Bruton rule that bars admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crawford’s testimonial-only rule narrows Aranda/Bruton | Crawford confines Confrontation Clause protection to testimonial statements, so nontestimonial codefendant statements are admissible with limiting instructions | Aranda/Bruton should apply regardless of testimonial character because an unredacted codefendant confession is inherently too incriminating for juries to ignore | Court held Crawford narrowed Aranda/Bruton; nontestimonial codefendant statements do not trigger Confrontation Clause Bruton protection |
| Whether due process independently bars admission of nontestimonial codefendant confessions | Admission does not violate due process where statements are nontestimonial and reliable; Jackson distinction limited to coerced/involuntary confessions | Due process should prohibit jury exposure to powerful codefendant confessions even if nontestimonial | Court declined to extend Jackson-based due process protection to nontestimonial codefendant confessions; no independent due process bar established |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to sever | Failure to move was reasonable because severance would not have been required; limiting instruction and admission context acceptable | Counsel was ineffective; a severance motion should have been made under Aranda/Bruton or due process grounds | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim because a severance motion would have been meritless under governing law; no prejudice shown |
| Whether severance was required under Penal Code §1098 | Prosecutor’s admission of codefendant statements was permissible under current confrontation/due process jurisprudence, so severance unnecessary | Section 1098 entitles defendant to separate trial given prejudicial codefendant confession | Court affirmed that severance was not warranted; review for abuse of discretion supports trial court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that incriminates defendant generally cannot be admitted at a joint trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial out-of-court statements)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions; limits on Bruton rule)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (due process concerns where a jury is asked to determine voluntariness and then consider an involuntary confession)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (test for whether statements are testimonial; primary purpose inquiry)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007) (Confrontation Clause has no application to nontestimonial statements)
- People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518 (1965) (California rule limiting admission of codefendant confessions; antecedent to Bruton analysis)
- People v. Winbush, 2 Cal.5th 402 (2017) (presumption that juries follow instructions; discussion of limiting instructions and extraordinary exceptions)