Opinion ID: 1961455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issue of Severance

Text: Prior to trial on November 30, 1977, the defense filed a motion to sever the three separate offenses, alleging they were not triable by the same mode of trial, and the complexity of the evidence to be offered would not enable the trier of fact to intelligently distinguish between the offenses or the law applicable to each. At the same time, a defense motion to quash alleged the duplicity of the charges and the unconstitutionality of Article 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the joinder of offenses. Severance was appropriate under Article 495.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defense alleged, in order to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. The motions were denied. Although conceding in brief that Article 493 was not facially unconstitutional, defense counsel argues it is unconstitutional as applied in this case. No evidence was presented by the defense at the pre-trial hearing held on the motions on December 5, 1977 and no defense argument was advanced on the law which would support these motions. The merits of these motions, therefore, is to be determined from the face of the bill of information, the record as then constituted, and the law. Joinder of offenses is specifically authorized by Article 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in these terms: Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan; provided that the offenses joined must be triable by the same mode of trial. The three offenses here are felonies charged in separate counts in the same information as approved by Article 493. They are also triable by the same mode of trial as the proviso of the Article mandates. Because there is no contention that these offenses are based upon the same act or transaction, or on two or more acts or transactions connected together, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, to fulfill all elements of a proper joinder in the context of this case, it remains only to determine whether the offenses are of the same or similar character. Each offense involves a charge under Section 966 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes. Each offense involves the distribution of marijuana, defined as a controlled dangerous substance under Louisiana law. Each offense occurred at the residence of defendant on Ebony Street, in North Hodge, Louisiana. Therefore, in the absence of evidence establishing facts to the contrary, the offenses as charged are of the same or similar character, and the joinder satisfies the requirements of Article 493. State v. Boone, 364 So.2d 978 (La.1978); State v. Carter, 352 So.2d 607 (La.1977). Aside from the requirements of Article 493, the court must grant a severance of offenses whenever if before trial, it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. Because no evidence was presented by the defense to support such a contention, because no defense argument or memorandum in support of such a contention was submitted to the trial judge prior to the ruling on the motion, and because, on the face of the information, the joinder satisfied the requirements of Article 493, there is no error in the ruling of the trial judge. When on its face the information fulfills the requirements of joinder under Article 493, it cannot be expected that the trial judge will find it appropriate to order a severance in order to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence without additional facts to support such a finding. At the very least, in certain offenses and under certain laws, an argument on the legal complications involved in joinder may be sufficient to order severance. In this case, however, no additional facts were established and no legal argument was presented to support a severance. Appropriate here is the language in State v. Carter, supra, a case involving this Court's initial interpretation of the cited articles on severance. As organ of the Court Mr. Justice CALOGERO wrote: For this reason we hold that when crimes, which have been joined simply because they are the same or similar character offenses, are indeed legitimate `other crimes' under Prieur and its progeny (the offenses are sufficiently similar, the evidence is relevant to a real issue in each case, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh its probative value), a decision not to sever the crimes will normally be proper. The ruling of the trial judge on these pretrial motions was correct. During trial, after the jury was empaneled, the defense filed another motion to sever, again alleging that a severance should be ordered in view of the number of offenses charged and the complexity of the evidence to be offered. These conclusory allegations are not associated in argument with the facts of the case. Nevertheless, as alleged and announced orally by defense counsel, the motion is principally based upon the allegation that certain prospective jurors indicated to the court that if they felt the defendant was guilty of one of the counts they would also probably feel he was guilty of the other two, although the evidence might not be strong. Once one count is proven, the motion sets forth, certain prospective jurors indicated they would not be able to accord defendant the presumption of innocence on the other counts. Motions to sever applied for during trial must be granted upon consent of the defendant if it is deemed necessary to achieve a fair determination of defendant's guilt or innocence. When such an application is presented the court shall consider, in view of the number of offenses charged and the complexity of the evidence to be offered, whether the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense. La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 495.1. The assignments of error, which present issues arising out of this during trial motion to sever, do not designate the portion of the record relied upon to support the motion. La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 845. The brief, however, refers the Court to the testimony of Gerald Pepper on his voir dire examination. Although conceding that Pepper was excused for cause, the defense submits that the confusion and feelings he harbored were generally indicative of the feelings of the entire community. On this basis, it is contended that a severance is necessary. This colloquy is cited: BY THE COURT: Let me ask you this Mr. Pepper. Your feelingsare you telling me that you are biased against this defendant or are you biased against selling or distributing marijuana? A. Probably both; I'm not quite sure how I feel. I have a horror of drugs, and, like I say, the things I have heard it would be hard to wipe all that out. BY THE COURT: Well you hear a lot of things about murder but somebody has to serve on the jury. What do you think about that? A. Well, Your Honor, I'm just trying to answer the questions as best I can. I am willing to do whatever I should do . . .. BY THE COURT: I believe the reason you stated you heard gossip among the people you work with, etc.? A. Yes sir. When asked by the trial judge if he could presume this man innocent and whether or not you can give him a fair trial, Pepper replied, I don't believe I can. Whereupon, the trial judge excused him for cause, commending him for his frank and earnest attitude. James D. Coleman was also called a prospective juror and examined on voir dire. The defense cites extracts from his testimony to support the contention that a state of apparent confusion existed among the jurors. The questions are by defense counsel: Q. . . . Of course, in this case it would make a substantial amount of difference or could make a substantial amount of difference whether or not you could isolate the three different dates and the three different charges without running them all together. A. I would try; it would be harder; he did it on one day then what is the difference on the other day? It would be a lot harder to convince me that he didn't; if I was convinced he had done it one day; then he hadn't done it at all. Q. I understand what you are saying and I appreciate that; there may be a lot of people who feel the same way, but, it may come out on the trial that he says `on all three dates, I did not do it' and then someone else says `Yes, you did do it' and what you are saying is that if you are convinced on one day when he said he did not do it but he did then you are going to have difficulty with his other two times even though the evidence might not be as strong on those two dates as on a third date, is that correct? A. That's correct. It is appropriate to note that after he was unable to rehabilitate Coleman, the trial judge also excused him for cause. On the basis of the testimony of two prospective jurors, who were properly excused for cause, the court cannot in logic or reason attribute these causes to the other twelve jurors who were considered acceptable by the court, the prosecution and the defense. There is no support for the broad assertion by defense counsel that the testimony of these two prospective jurors was indicative of the feelings of the entire community. Defendant took the stand and admitted that when he was arrested he had secreted in his boots several lids of marijuana. His wife, who was present at the time, confirmed this fact. State police officers assisting in undercover narcotic investigations testified to the isolated, but remarkably similar, transactions in which they purchased marijuana from defendant at his residence. Our appreciation of the record, like that of the trial judge, does not require that we find reversible error in his ruling denying severance of these offenses. The evidence of each isolated transaction was forthright and uncomplicated. There was no reasonable opportunity to confuse the three offenses. Severance was not therefore necessary to achieve a fair determination of defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense.