734 S.E.2d 167
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- McDonald convicted of murder and first-degree burglary in a joint trial with co-defendants Cannon and Whitehead.
- Cannon and Whitehead gave statements; McDonald did not testify.
- Cannon’s statement was redacted to replace co-defendant references with neutral terms.
- McDonald challenged the redacted statement as violating the Confrontation Clause and Bruton.
- Court held redaction to “another person” complied with Bruton and admitted the statement with a limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redaction of co-defendant’s statement violates Bruton. | McDonald argues redaction fails Bruton. | State argues redaction to neutral terms suffices. | Redaction to a neutral term avoids Bruton violation. |
| Whether Crawford v. Washington applies to the redacted statement. | McDonald asserts Crawford prohibits admission without confrontation. | State contends Crawford not preserved for review on written statement. | Crawford issue not preserved; Bruton governs prominently. |
| Whether the redacted statement was preserved for Crawford challenge due to contemporaneous objection requirements. | McDonald’s Crawford challenge not raised at admission. | Objection not preserved; waived for appeal. | Crawford issue not preserved; Bruton analysis controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (non-testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating another is inadmissible on face)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless unavailable with prior cross-examination)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (limits Bruton’s reach; rules on linkage vs. on-face incrimination)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (redaction cannot render incriminating references imperceptible)
- State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 676 S.E.2d 690 (S.C. 2009) (redacted references cannot be readily linked to defendant; confrontation concerns)
- Page v. State, 378 S.C. 476, 663 S.E.2d 357 (Ct. App. 2008) (redaction with limiting instruction may permit co-defendant confession)
- United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1999) (redacted statements with neutral terms can be admissible)
- United States v. Vogt, 910 F.2d 1184 (4th Cir. 1990) (redacted co-defendant statements not facially incriminating)
- State v. La-Barge, 275 S.C. 168, 268 S.E.2d 278 (S.C. 1980) (redaction method questioned under Bruton)