At respondent's murder trial, the State relied on respondent's own detailed confession. Respondent testified that his confession was coerced and was merely a repetition of accomplice Clifford Peele's written statement, which the sheriff had allegedly read to him and directed him to copy. In rebuttal, the State called Sheriff Papantoniou, who denied coercion and read Peele's confession to the jury so the jury could compare the two statements. The trial judge repeatedly instructed the jury that Peele's confession was admitted only for rebuttal and not for the truth of its contents.
Issue
Whether the Confrontation Clause is violated when the prosecution introduces a nontestifying accomplice's confession, not for its truth, but to rebut the defendant's testimony that his own confession was coercively derived from that accomplice's statement, accompanied by limiting instructions.
Rule
The Confrontation Clause is not violated by admission of an out-of-court confession when it is introduced for a legitimate nonhearsay purpose rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, the declarant's statement is used to illuminate an issue such as the circumstances of the defendant's confession, the witness through whom the statement is introduced is available for cross-examination on that limited purpose, and the jury is instructed not to use the statement for its truth.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
At a robbery trial in Memphis, Devin Cole testifies that detectives forced him to sign a confession by reading aloud a written statement previously given by Omar Velez and telling Devin to repeat it. In rebuttal, the prosecution calls Detective Lena Morris, who denies doing so and reads Omar's statement so the jury can compare the two accounts. The judge tells the jury both before and after the reading that Omar's statement is admitted only to evaluate Devin's coercion claim, not for its truth.
Did admission of Omar's statement violate Devin's rights under the Confrontation Clause?
Explanation. The majority rule permits admission of a nontestifying accomplice's confession when it is not offered for its truth, but for a legitimate nonhearsay purpose such as rebutting the defendant's testimony that police made him copy that statement. The relevant witness on that issue is the detective, who can be cross-examined about the interrogation, and the trial court may rely on a proper limiting instruction directing the jury not to consider the statement for its truth.