SNOWDEN v. STATE (2025)

Appellant argues that his convictions and sentences for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder must be reversed, claiming fundamental error in the admission of an out-of-court statement from a codefendant. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (holding that a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation occurred when a non-testifying codefendant's confession was admitted at trial). Because Appellant did not make this argument at trial, this unpreserved claim is subject to fundamental error review. See Jack v. State, 349 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

A violation of the Confrontation Clause, as discussed in Bruton, does not occur when the codefendant's statement is “not related to any confession or inculpatory statement” by the codefendant about the defendant. Sheppard v. State, 151 So. 3d 1154, 1169 (Fla. 2014). Additionally, the Confrontation Clause is not implicated when “the statements were used purely as a provocation to observe [the defendant's] reactions.” Jackson v. State, 18 So. 3d 1016, 1032 (Fla. 2009). The codefendant's statement here that he “drove the car” did not implicate Appellant in any crimes and was shown to Appellant during his custodial interrogation to provoke a reaction. Accordingly, the Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of the codefendant's statement. Appellant fails to demonstrate any error, much less fundamental error, in the admission of the codefendant's statement.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Ray, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.