THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Michael Frierson, Appellant.
Appeal From
Marion County
John M.
Milling, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished
Opinion No.� 2003-UP-135
Submitted January 13, 2003 � Filed February 19, 2003
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia,for appellant.�
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence; for respondent.�
PER CURIAM:� Michael Frierson appeals his convictions for three counts of murder, two counts and assault and battery with intent to kill, first degree burglary, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in explaining to the jury that the law requires references to a defendant in a jointly-tried co-defendant�s statement be redacted when the co-defendant does not testify.�
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:� Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430 (1972) (�The mere finding of a violation of the Bruton rule . . . does not automatically require reversal of the ensuing criminal conviction.� In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the co-defendant�s admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error.�); Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 193-94 (1987) (�[W]here a nontestifying codefendant�s confession incriminating the defendant is not directly admissible against the defendant . . . the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at their joint trial. . . .� Of course, the defendant�s confession may be considered at trial in assessing whether his codefendant�s statements are supported by sufficient �indicia of reliability� to be directly admissible against him . . . despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, and may be considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless.�) (internal citations omitted); State v. Howard, 295 S.C. 462, 468, 369 S.E.2d 132, 135-36 (1988) (�We quote extensively here [from Cruz] to emphasize that the United States Supreme Court has not condemned admission of a co‑defendant�s confession but has merely shifted the focus of analysis.� Such a statement will no longer be considered reliable simply because some of the facts it contains �interlock� with the defendant�s own statement.� The presumption of unreliability that applies to a co-defendant�s statement will be overcome only if those portions of the statement concerning the defendant�s participation are �thoroughly substantiated� by the defendant�s own confession.� Even when this analysis is not applied at trial to determine the statement�s admissibility, on appeal the same analysis is appropriate to determine whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless.� Appellants� statements mutually and completely substantiated each other.� We hold any Confrontation Clause violation to either appellant was harmless.�) (internal citations omitted).�
AFFIRMED.�
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.