771 S.E.2d 840
S.C.2015Background
- Victim was beaten to death in his home on Dec. 12, 2006; three male coworkers (McDonald, Whitehead, Cannon) were tried jointly for burglary and murder.
- Cannon gave a written confession implicating himself and two others; Cannon did not testify at trial. The State redacted his statement by replacing codefendant names with the neutral phrase "another person."
- McDonald also gave a confession describing the trip to purchase masks and gloves, the forced entry, the beatings with a bat and lamp, and theft — corroborated by a Wal‑Mart receipt and a piece of a purple glove at the scene.
- The jury convicted all three defendants; no defendant testified at trial. McDonald appealed, arguing the admission of Cannon’s redacted confession violated his Confrontation Clause rights.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Confrontation Clause issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession redacted by replacing names with the phrase "another person" violated the Confrontation Clause (Bruton line) | McDonald: the redaction was obvious in context and facially implicated him and Whitehead, preventing cross‑examination | State: the neutral phrase "another person" and a limiting instruction avoided a Confrontation Clause violation | The Court held the redaction violated Bruton/Gray/Henson because the confession facially incriminated McDonald; however, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent and corroborating evidence, so conviction affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (a nontestifying codefendant’s confession that implicates the defendant violates the Confrontation Clause)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (no Bruton violation when confession is redacted to eliminate any reference to the defendant and a limiting instruction is given)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redaction that obviously signals deletion or replaces a name with a blank or similar device can violate Bruton because it invites inference to the defendant)
- Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (1972) (a Bruton error can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where other evidence is overwhelming and corroborates the confession)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework distinguishing testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
- State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278 (S.C. 2009) (redaction using a pronoun violated Bruton where jury could readily connect the statement to the defendant)
- State v. Henson, 407 S.C. 154 (S.C. 2014) (redactions using phrases like "the guy" or pronouns violated Bruton when the confession facially implicated the defendant)