State v. SMITH, 302 Ga. 837

Parrish, Smith, and others were charged in a murder and related indictment stemming from the shooting death of Rebecca Foley; police allege the three attempted a robbery and shot Foley as she drove away.
Smith was later arrested for an unrelated assault and possessed a firearm ballistically matched to the Foley murder weapon.
In custodial questioning, Smith said he bought that gun in March 2013 from someone he called “Jarod or Rod” Parrish — two months after the murder. The State seeks to use portions of that statement at trial.
Parrish moved in limine to exclude Smith’s custodial statement on Confrontation Clause grounds (Crawford) and argued he must be able to cross-examine Smith if the statement is used against him; the trial court granted the motion.
The State appealed, arguing Crawford did not bar admission because the statement does not facially incriminate Parrish and, under Bruton and Richardson, the statement could be admitted against Smith with an appropriate limiting/redaction instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crawford bars admission of Smith’s custodial, testimonial statement at a joint trial if Smith does not testify	State: Crawford does not apply because statement is not facially inculpatory of Parrish; admissible against Smith	Parrish: Crawford bars admission of Smith’s testimonial statement against Parrish unless Parrish had prior opportunity to cross-examine	Reversed trial court: Crawford does not render the statement wholly inadmissible; if not directly inculpatory it may be admitted against Smith with limiting instruction or redaction
Whether Bruton requires severance or exclusion when a co-defendant’s confession names the defendant	State: Bruton not triggered because statement does not directly inculpate Parrish; limiting instruction suffices	Parrish: admission would violate confrontation rights if he cannot cross-examine Smith	Court: Bruton applies only to statements that directly inculpate; here the statement is not clearly inculpatory, so Bruton does not mandate severance and a limiting instruction/redaction may cure prejudice

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements admissible only if declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that directly incriminates defendant may violate Confrontation Clause)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction and limiting instruction can avoid Confrontation Clause violation when confession is not incriminating on its face)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (limiting instruction may suffice in many circumstances but redactions that plainly incriminate can still pose problems)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality on Crawford’s testimonial-statement framework)
Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509 (2013) (error to admit co-defendant’s testimonial statement against defendant in joint trial)
Moss v. State, 275 Ga. 96 (2001) (no Bruton violation where co-defendant’s statements did not directly inculpate defendant)
Thomas v. State, 268 Ga. 135 (1997) (no Bruton violation when co-defendant’s statement about purchasing a gun later linked to murder did not clearly inculpate defendant)
Sutton v. State, 295 Ga. 350 (2014) (interpretation of Bruton/Richardson limiting-rule in Georgia)
Owen v. State, 266 Ga. 312 (1996) (Bruton principles and limiting instructions)
United States v. Arias, 984 F.2d 1139 (11th Cir. 1993) (Bruton limits only statements that directly inculpate a co-defendant)