Opinion ID: 1161683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: failure to sever trials

Text: Each defendant was originally charged in a separate complaint. The cases were later consolidated for trial. Prior to trial, each of the defendants moved to sever their case for trial. Each defendant argued that his or her ability to call the other defendants as witnesses was frustrated by the right of the codefendants to refuse to testify as a witness; therefore, they did not receive a fair trial in a consolidated trial. The district judge noted that the defendants had not advanced antagonistic defenses and observed that any potential prejudice caused by consolidation would be cured by an appropriate limiting instruction. Based on this reasoning, the district judge found that the defendants had failed to make an adequate showing for severance and denied the motion for severance. It is permissible for several defendants to be joined together in one trial, when charged in separate complaints, if: `(1) when each of the defendants is charged with accountability for each offense included, or (2) when each of the defendants is charged with conspiracy and some of the defendants are also charged with one or more offenses alleged to be in furtherance of the conspiracy, or (3) when in the absence of a conspiracy it is alleged the several offenses charged were part of a common scheme or were so closely connected in time, place and occasion that proof of one charge would require proof of the others.' State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 359, 932 P.2d 408 (1997) (quoting State v. Tate, 228 Kan. 752, 754, 620 P.2d 326 [1980]). The determination of whether defendants charged separately may be tried together is in the trial court's discretion. Therefore, the trial court's decision is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. 261 Kan. at 359. Each defendant was charged with a single conspiracy, i.e., an agreement by each defendant to commit theft by deception by staging accidents and making false claims against insurance companies for compensation. Under such circumstances, the defendants could originally have been charged in a single complaint; therefore, the requirements for joinder were satisfied. Even if the requirements of joinder are satisfied, the court cannot join the defendants for trial if the defendants are prejudiced by the joinder. Although a single trial may be desirable from the standpoint of economical and efficient criminal procedure, the right of a defendant to a fair trial must be the overriding consideration. 261 Kan. at 360. The usual grounds to show prejudice to a fair trial so that severance will be granted are: `(1) the defendants have antagonistic defenses; (2) important evidence in favor of one of the defendants which would be admissible in a separate trial would not be allowed in a joint trial; (3) evidence incompetent as to one defendant and introducible against another would work prejudicially to the former with the jury; (4) a confession by one defendant, if introduced and proved, would be calculated to prejudice the jury against the others; and (5) one of the defendants who could give evidence for the whole or some of the other defendants would become a competent and compellable witness on the separate trials of such other defendants.` 261 Kan. at 360 (quoting State v. Pham, 234 Kan. 649, Syl. ¶ 2, 675 P.2d 848 [1984]). The defendants argue that they were prejudiced by the joinder. They identify specific evidence that they were precluded from offering by joinder: 1. Dr. Loeb could have been called by the other defendants regarding his diagnosis and treatment of their injuries as well as the customary charges for treatment of the injuries. 2. Dr. Loeb could have offered expert testimony to establish the causal link between the accidents and the injuries sustained by the defendants arising from the accidents. 3. In a separate trial, each of the other defendants could have been called to testify as to the facts of each accident, the damages, and injuries sustained, and to rebut and/or resolve conflicts in the testimony of witnesses called by the State. 4. Dr. Loeb could have called the other defendants to testify that he did provide treatment for actual injuries. 5. Defendants associated with Smith Industries could have been called by other defendants to testify that Smith Industries was a roofing subcontractor that employed and paid Willie Smith, Charles Smith, Janet Jarrell, David Gault and Adam Gault. 6. The other defendants would have testified there was no agreement to stage accidents and/or submit fraudulent insurance claims. At the conclusion of trial, the defendants proffered to the trial judge that, had the case been severed, they would have been able to offer the stated evidence in their defense. In addition, the defendants point out that no health care expert testified that the defendants were not actually injured in the accident or that the defendants had exaggerated their injuries, and, in most of the accidents, the insurance companies had investigated the facts of the accidents, found that defendants were not at fault, had been injured, and approved compensation paid the defendants. First, we note that the Fifth Amendment privilege `can be claimed in any proceeding, be it criminal or civil, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory [citation omitted], and it protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used.' State v. Lekas, 201 Kan. 579, 589, 442 P.2d 11 (1968) (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n., 378 U.S. 52, 94, 12 L. Ed.2d 678, 84 S. Ct. 1594 [1964], [White, J., concurring]). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends until there is a final judgment in a case and a right to appeal has expired. See State v. Aldape, 14 Kan. App. 2d 521, 526, 794 P.2d 672, rev. denied 247 Kan. 705 (1990). Therefore, each defendant retained his or her right not to testify as a witness even if separately tried. Separate trials would not have insured that the proffered evidence would be available to any defendant. The defendants further assert that evidence of prior bad acts, admitted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-455 against some defendants, prejudiced the other defendants. The defendants fail to acknowledge that the court gave the jury a limiting instruction prior to the admission of the evidence implicating other defendants. The instruction specifically stated that the evidence was admissible as to the named defendant only. Absent any contrary evidence, it must be assumed that the jury followed this instruction, thus minimizing prejudice to the other defendants. See State v. Lane, 262 Kan. 373, 391, 940 P.2d 422 (1997).