Smith v. State
308 Ga. App. 190
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- After a joint trial, Douglas Smith and Andrea Sinyard were convicted of multiple drug offenses, and Smith was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Smith challenges the denial of his mistrial motion after a witness testified to statements made by Sinyard, a non-testifying co-defendant.
- The State sought to prove Smith resided at Sinyard's residence; testimony included mail and a bank card belonging to Smith found at the residence.
- During trial, counsel for Sinyard elicited that police found Sinyard’s statements; the trial court gave a curative instruction rather than granting mistrial.
- Earlier in the trial, another witness testified to Sinyard’s specific statements about being married to someone named 'Doug' and living at Sinyard’s residence; Smith did not object at that time.
- The appellate court held there was no Bruton violation and affirmed the judgment, noting proper curative instructions and waiver on the earlier testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bruton violation occurred | Smith contends Sinyard's out-of-court statement violated Confrontation Clause. | Sinyard's statements were not directly incriminating on their face and were cured by instruction. | No Bruton violation; curative instruction sufficient. |
| Waiver of Bruton claim | Smith argues Bruton issue preserved for appeal. | Earlier testimony about Sinyard's statements was not objected to; waiver applies. | Waived due to lack of timely objection. |
| Adequacy of trial court's remedy | Mistrial should have been granted to alleviate Bruton risk. | Curative instruction adequately addressed potential prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; curative instruction appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (extrajudicial statements by non-testifying co-defendant may violate Confrontation Clause unless not incriminating on their face)
- Moss v. State, 275 Ga. 96 (2002) (curative instruction can cure Bruton-type prejudice)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (limits Bruton rule to facially incriminating statements; limiting instructions may be appropriate)
- Ham v. State, 303 Ga.App. 232 (2010) (testimony about existence of co-defendant's statement, without content, may not itself incriminate)
- Thaxton v. State, 260 Ga. 141 (1990) (timeliness of Bruton objection governs preservation)