Georgia v. Smith

The State appealed a trial court’s order granting Roderick Parrish’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude a statement made by one of his codefendants, Kevin Smith. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004), precluded the admissibility of Smith’s statement. Parrish and several others were charged in a 59-count indictment for various crimes, including murder and attempted robbery, in the shooting death of Rebecca Foley. The State planned to show that the perpetrators were all members of a street gang; Smith was later arrested for an unrelated aggravated assault and had in his possession a firearm that ballistics testing matched to the one used to kill Foley. During questioning by police, Smith was asked where he bought the gun. He explained that he purchased it in March 2013, which was two months after Foley’s murder, from someone he met “on the street” named “Jarod or Rod” Parrish. Parrish moved to prohibit the use of Smith’s custodial statement at trial on the ground that he was implicated in the statement and had a right to confront Smith. The trial court ruled that because Smith’s statement was not clearly inculpatory, severance of defendants under Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968) was not required, but that Crawford, precluded admissibility in the event Smith did not testify and Parrish had no opportunity to cross-examine him. The Georgia Supreme Court determined Smith’s statement that he bought the gun from Parrish after the murder was not directly inculpatory of Parrish, and so it would have been admissible against Smith with an instruction to the jury to consider the statement only against Smith. The trial court therefore erred in ruling that the statement was wholly inadmissible. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on the motion in limine and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Georgia v. Smith" on Justia Law