New Hampshire
How Bruton v. United States applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
In New Hampshire, the principles established in Bruton v. United States are recognized in the context of multi-defendant trials. The state emphasizes the need for reliable confrontation rights and the potential for prejudicial effects when using co-defendant confessions against another defendant.
New Hampshire law adheres to the principle that a co-defendant's statement implicating another defendant cannot be admitted in a joint trial without the declarant being subjected to cross-examination.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the admission of a co-defendant's statement without the opportunity for cross-examination violated the defendant's right to confrontation.
The Court ruled that severance is necessary when co-defendant statements pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the accused.
The court reiterated the principles set forth in Bruton, emphasizing that non-testifying co-defendant confessions cannot be used against another in a joint trial.
New Hampshire broadly aligns with the federal standard established in Bruton v. United States, which prohibits the admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's statement in joint trials. However, New Hampshire courts may offer more specific procedural remedies like severance based on state trial context.
The principles from Bruton v. United States are relevant for the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in sections focusing on the rights of defendants in criminal trials and the standards for severance and admission of evidence.