State v. Smith, 302 Ga. 837

Parrish and co-defendants (including Kevin Smith) were indicted for felony charges arising from the murder of Rebecca Foley; State alleges Parrish, Smith, and another approached Foley, attempted a robbery, and Foley was shot.
Ballistics matched a firearm found on Smith (arrested later for unrelated assault) to the gun used to kill Foley; during custodial questioning Smith said he bought the gun in March 2013 from someone named "Jarod or Rod Parrish."
Parrish moved in limine to exclude Smith’s custodial, testimonial statement on Confrontation Clause grounds if Smith does not testify and Parrish cannot cross-examine him.
Trial court found Smith’s statement was testimonial and, applying Crawford, concluded it would be inadmissible against Parrish if Smith is unavailable, although it found the statement was not clearly inculpatory so Bruton severance was not required.
State appealed the in limine exclusion; the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether Crawford bars admission here or whether Bruton/Richardson permit admission against Smith with a limiting instruction and possible redaction.
Court concluded the statement (as the State seeks to use it) does not directly inculpate Parrish and thus is admissible against Smith with a limiting instruction; trial court erred to rule it wholly inadmissible and the case was reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a co-defendant’s custodial, testimonial statement naming defendant may be excluded under Crawford even if not facially inculpatory	Parrish: Crawford bars admission of testimonial statements when declarant is unavailable and defendant had no prior cross-examination opportunity, regardless of whether statement facially inculpates	State: Crawford does not apply to bar admission here because the statement is not facially inculpatory of Parrish; under Bruton/Richardson it can be admitted against Smith with limiting instruction or redaction	The court held Crawford does not require exclusion where the co-defendant’s statement does not directly inculpate the defendant; the statement may be admitted against Smith with a limiting instruction and possible redaction; trial court’s exclusion reversed and remanded

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) (co-defendant’s confession that powerfully incriminates defendant may violate Confrontation Clause at joint trial)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction and limiting instruction can avoid Confrontation Clause problem where confession omits all direct references to co-defendant)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (limiting instructions may be adequate in many circumstances; careful with redactions that leave obvious inference)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (discusses Crawford’s framework for testimonial statements and confrontation)
Colton v. State, 292 Ga. 509 (2013) (error to admit co-defendant’s testimonial statement against defendant in joint trial)
Arias v. United States, 984 F.2d 1139 (11th Cir. 1993) (Bruton interpreted to exclude only co-defendant statements that directly inculpate co-defendant)
Moss v. State, 275 Ga. 96 (2002) (no Bruton violation where co-defendant statements did not directly inculpate defendant)
Thomas v. State, 268 Ga. 135 (1997) (no Bruton violation where co-defendant’s statement did not clearly inculpate defendant)
Sutton v. State, 295 Ga. 350 (2014) (discussing Bruton and limiting instruction principles)