R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 14
If it appears that a defendant or the State is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information, or complaint or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. If two (2) or more defendants are to be tried together and the State intends to introduce at trial a statement or confession of any of the defendants, the attorney for the State shall, prior to trial, on notice to all defendants deliver to the court any such written statement or confession or a written summary of any such oral statement or confession for in camera inspection and determination of whether any portion of the statement or confession involves another defendant and, if so, whether such portion can be effectively deleted therefrom. If the court determines that effective deletions cannot practicably be made, it shall order separate trials of the defendants. Upon failure of the attorney for the State to comply with this rule, the court may refuse to admit into evidence such statement or confession.
R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 14
1972 Notes
The first sentence of this rule is essentially the same as its federal counterpart. The balance of the proposed rule differs significantly from the federal rule which simply provides that when a defendant moves for severance the court may order the prosecution to deliver to it statements or confessions of defendants which the prosecution intends to introduce at the trial. Under the proposed rule, which is based partially on Rule 3: 17-2(a) of the New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution will be required in advance of a joint trial to deliver to the court written statements or confessions, or the substance in writing of oral statements or confessions, of any of the defendants that it intends to introduce at the trial. The court is then to determine whether any portions thereof involve another defendant and whether to order deletions or severance. This provision will more fully implement the decisions, in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100 (1968), which held that introduction at trial of a codefendant's confession which implicates another defendant violates the latter's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Although the thrust of Bruton has been somewhat blunted by the recent decision in Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971), the complete ban on any portions of a confession which incriminates a co-defendant is deemed fair as well as easy to administer. By requiring the prosecution to produce these statements and confessions for the court's inspection prior to trial, the possibility of mistrials, or perhaps dismissals, will be minimized.
See also 1975 Notes to Rule 7.