holding that prosecutor’s statement during rebuttal closing argument that defendant’s innocence was not the only inference that could be drawn from failure of the informant to testify and that defendant could have used compulsory process to secure informant’s appearance if defendant truly believed that the informant’s testimony would have been exculpatory were invited by defendant’s closing argument in which defendant demanded that the State explain the informant’s failure to appear at trial; as such, the statements were not made in error
How later courts described this case
- holding that prosecutor’s statement during rebuttal closing argument that defendant’s innocence was not the only inference that could be drawn from failure of the informant to testify and that defendant could have used compulsory process to secure informant’s appearance if defendant truly believed that the informant’s testimony would have been exculpatory were invited by defendant’s closing argument in which defendant demanded that the State explain the informant’s failure to appear at trial; as such, the statements were not made in error
- finding that the prosecutor’s comment during rebuttal argument regarding defense counsel’s failure to call a certain witness was invited by references in defense counsel’s argument that the State failed to call the witness
- where the State was not obligated to disclose a witness’ statement which was not memorialized in writing, court would not lightly presume bad faith based on the sole fact that defendant was surprised by witness’ trial testimony
- "Finally, the State gave its criteria for challenging the seven black veniremen, asserting that the criteria were applied to all veniremen, without regard to race."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join that part of the court’s opinion with respect to cause No. 61821, which affirms the convictions and death sentence of defendant Jerry Mahaffey. I do not agree with the court, however, that a new trial is required in cause No. 61822, involving defendant Reginald Mahaffey, and therefore I-dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
The defendants were tried jointly before a jury on charges stemming from the murder of Dean and Jo Ellen Pueschel, the sexual assault of Mrs. Pueschel, and the attempted murder of the Pueschels’ 11-year-old son, Richard. At trial the State presented the identification testimony of Richard Pueschel as well as evidence establishing that certain items of property belonging to the Pueschels were discovered in the defendants’ possession when they were arrested in connection with the offenses here. The State also presented, as part of its case in chief against each defendant, that defendant’s confession to the crimes; the jurors were instructed, both when the confessions were published and later, at the outset of deliberations, not to rely on the confession of one defendant in determining the guilt or innocence of the other. At trial the defendants challenged the accuracy of their confessions. Reginald Mahaffey testified, and he denied any involvement in the offenses and claimed that his confession was the product of coercion. Jerry Mahaffey, who did not testify, presented a similar defense through the testimony of other witnesses, disputing the strength of the State’s evidence and attempting to show that his own confession was also coerced.
Before trial the defendants had moved for a severance on the grounds that the State’s intended use of the confessions would, under Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 , 88 S. Ct. 1620 , deny them their right to confront witnesses. The trial judge denied the motion, relying on the plurality opinion in Parker v. Randolph (1979), 442 U.S. 62 , 60 L. Ed. 2d 713 , 99 S. Ct. 2132 , which held that Bruton error does not occur if a defendant’s own confession, introduced into evidence, “interlocks” with, or is corroborated by, the confession of the nontestifying codefendant and the jury receives instructions correctly limiting the use of the evidence.
The Supreme Court has since rejected Parker, however, in Cruz v. New York (1987), 481 U.S. 186 , 95 L. Ed. 2d 162 , 107 S. Ct. 1714 . Because Jerry Mahaffey did not testify at trial, codefendant Reginald Mahaffey claims that, under Bruton and Cruz, he was denied his confrontation right by the introduction of Jerry’s incriminating confession. The State now contends that there were sufficient indicia of reliability to have warranted substantive evidentiary use of Jerry Mahaffey’s confession against Reginald Mahaffey and, alternatively, that the Bruton error was harmless. For the reasons set out below, I would conclude that what error occurred was indeed harmless and does not necessitate a new trial.
Bruton errors, though constitutional in nature, do not mechanically compel reversal (see Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193-94 , 95 L. Ed. 2d at 172 , 107 S. Ct. at 1719 ), and a conviction may be upheld if the reviewing court is able to determine that the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 ). This requires consideration of the strength of the competent evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the probable effect on the jury of the nontestifying codefendant’s confession. See Brown v. United States (1973), 411 U.S. 223 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 208 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 ; Schneble v. Florida (1972), 405 U.S. 427 , 31 L. Ed. 2d 340 , 92 S. Ct. 1056 ; Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 , 89 S. Ct. 1726 .
The State presented substantial evidence establishing Reginald Mahaffey’s guilt of the offenses charged here. At trial Richard Pueschel, who survived the brutal attack, identified the defendants as the family’s assailants. The. State also presented Reginald Mahaffey’s confession to the crimes. In his statement, Reginald Mahaffey described the brothers’ entry into the Pueschels’ apartment, the attempt to strangle the Pueschels’ son, Richard, the murder of Mr. Pueschel, the sexual assault and murder of Mrs. Pueschel, the removal of a number of possessions from the apartment, and the brothers’ escape in the victims’ car. Reginald Mahaffey’s account of the offenses was confirmed by investigating officers, whose analysis of the crime scene verified the details given in the confession.
Numerous items identified at trial as belonging to the victims were found in Reginald Mahaffey’s possession at the time of his arrest, four days after the offenses occurred. In Reginald Mahaffey’s room police officers discovered Mr. Pueschel’s .357 Magnum revolver and Remington shotgun; the handgun bore traces of blood consistent with Mrs. Pueschel’s blood type. The officers also found a stereo dust cover containing 24 pieces of jewelry belonging to the Pueschels, including several bracelets bearing the victims’ names. Reginald Mahaffey was wearing Mr. Pueschel’s ring, and he had in his pocket Mr. Pueschel’s watch and crucifix. At trial Reginald testified that he had purchased the guns and other items from another man; there was no evidence to corroborate that explanation. Police officers found the Pueschels’ television set, video cassette recorder, and videotapes in Jerry Mahaffey’s own apartment.
In view of the substantial evidence of Reginald Mahaffey’s guilt, I do not believe that it can be said that he was prejudiced by the State’s use at the joint trial of his brother’s confession, which, like his own, implicated both defendants. In this regard, it may be noted that the Mahaffeys’ defenses to the charges were complementary rather than antagonistic. Their shared theory of defense claimed that they did not take part in the attack on the Pueschels and that their confessions to those crimes were involuntary. If Jerry Mahaffey had taken the witness stand at trial, he would have denied involvement in the offenses and would have asserted that his inculpatory statements to the police were coerced. But other testimony on those claims was introduced into evidence on Jerry Mahaffey’s behalf. In essence, Jerry’s failure to testify cost Reginald Mahaffey only the opportunity to present further testimony in support of the defense contentions.
Assuming that a Bruton error occurred in this case, I would hold that the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and I would therefore consider in the present appeal the remaining arguments raised by defendant Reginald Mahaffey in cause No. 61822.
JUSTICE RYAN joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.