Opinion ID: 1105577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Motion to Quash

Text: Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying a motion to quash the indictment. In the motion, defendant claimed the indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery and first degree murder was duplicitous or contain[ed] a misjoinder of offenses. Vol. I, p. 37. At a pretrial motion hearing, defense trial counsel argued duplicitous and double jeopardy aspects were presented by the joined offenses. Vol. 2, p. 346-358. Characterizing the defense argument as one of double jeopardy, the trial court denied the motion to quash. Vol. 3, p. 607-608. On the morning of trial, defense trial counsel renewed argument on the motion to quash, raising only claims of duplicitousness and double jeopardy. The trial court again denied the motion to quash. Vol. 4, p. 877-879. The motion to quash the indictment had merit, but not for the reasons argued by defense trial counsel. The charges constituted a misjoinder of offenses under La.C.Cr.P. art. 493. La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 provides: 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. (Emphasis supplied) State v. McZeal, 352 So.2d 592, 601 (La. 1977) (on reh'g) interpreted this article's provision that joined offenses be triable by the same mode of trial as a reference to La. Const. art. 1, § 17, which suggests four classes of [criminal] trials: trial before a judge only; trial before a jury of six persons, five of whom must concur to render a verdict; trial before a jury of twelve persons, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict; and trial before a jury of twelve persons, all of whom must concur to render a verdict. See also La.C.Cr.P. art. 782(A). All the charges against Strickland required trial before a jury of twelve persons. However, the capital charge required a unanimous verdict; the non-capital charges required the concurrence of only ten jurors. Thus, under McZeal the joinder of capital and non-capital charges in a single indictment violated the terms of art. 493 and La. Const. art. I, § 17. The state argues this issue has not been preserved for review. The state maintains that simply tracking the language of La. C.Cr.P. art. 532(3) in the motion, alleging the indictment is duplicitous or contains a misjoinder of defendants or offenses, is not sufficient to put the court or state on notice of the complained-of error, particularly when the argument of counsel focused on duplicitous and double jeopardy considerations. State's Brief at 18. Indeed, a motion to quash must specify distinctly the grounds on which it is based. La.C.Cr.P. art. 536. Appellate defense counsel recognizes this obstacle and focuses his argument on the misjoinder ground raised only in the written motion. Defense Brief, at 15, n. 18. Under the Taylor scope of review, if the Court finds trial counsel did not sufficiently specify this error prior to trial, the Court need not review this issue. The facts present a close case. However, in order to reach a more significant question, the Court will assume, without deciding, that the defendant's objection had enough specificity to preserve the matter for review. Under McZeal, the joinder of capital and non-capital charges in a single indictment violates the terms of La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 and La. Const. art. 1, § 17. Having found misjoinder, the Court must now determine the proper appellate analysis of the error. McZeal held misjoinder of offenses was prejudicial per se and rejected harmless error review. To reach this conclusion, McZeal relied upon the distinction between misjoinder of offenses and prejudicial joinder. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, when offenses are not properly joinable under Article 493, the defendant has a right to have the indictment quashed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 493. In contrast, if the offenses are joinable, but the joinder is prejudicial, a defendant is only entitled to seek a severance, which shall be granted before trial if it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense. La.C.Cr.P. art. 495.1(a). McZeal, 352 So.2d at 602. McZeal found that La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 had a built-in standard of prejudice, and that any improper joinder was conclusively presumed to be prejudicial or harmful. Id. at 602-603. In addition to this distinction, McZeal noted the provisions of La.C.Cr.P. art. 493 substantially tracked the language of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a). McZeal found, however, that the concluding proviso of La.C.Cr.P. art. 493, which makes joinder contingent upon the joined offenses being subject to the same mode of trial, evinces an affirmative intent on the part of the legislature to limit the application of the joinder provision to a narrower class of cases than those provided for in the federal system. Id., 352 So.2d at 600. Nevertheless, McZeal relied on federal authorities interpreting Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a), to find that, just as a federal trial judge has no discretion to deny relief after finding misjoined offenses, neither does a state appellate court have discretion to do other than reverse an erroneously sustained joinder. Id. at 603. We reject McZeal's conclusion that misjoinder constitutes prejudice per se which mandates automatic reversal of a conviction and sentence, and hold that misjoinder may be reviewed for harmless error. The distinction between misjoinder and prejudicial joinder is an important one, but only at the trial level to determine whether a defendant's proper remedy is a motion to quash or a motion to sever. At the appellate level, the distinction becomes blurred since the basis for the prohibition against both misjoinder and prejudicial joinder is, essentially, prejudice to the defendant. See State v. Mallett, 357 So.2d 1105, 1109 (La.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1074, 99 S.Ct. 848, 59 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979) (The prohibition against misjoinder of offenses and improper consolidation of offenses for trial is grounded on the possible prejudice arising from a single trial on two or more offenses.) (emphasis added). Thus, errors of both types may be reviewed to determine whether the substantial rights of the defendant were prejudiced. A judgment or ruling should not be reversed due to error unless the error affects substantial rights of the accused. La. C.Cr.P. art. 921, see also State v. Johnson, 94-1379, p. 16 (La. 11/27/95); 664 So.2d 94, 101 (rule for trial procedure couched in mandatory terms rejected as per se rule for appellate review). This conclusion is bolstered by federal authority. Subsequent to McZeal, the federal courts have determined that misjoinder under Rule 8, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is subject to harmless-error analysis and is not reversible error per se. See United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 106 S.Ct. 725, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986). In Lane, the Court was faced specifically with misjoinder under Rule 8(b) [misjoinder of defendants; Rule 8(a) deals with misjoinder of offenses], but stated that it granted certiorari to resolve ... whether a misjoinder under Rule 8 ... is subject to the harmless error rule. The Court referred throughout the opinion to Rule 8, rather than merely Rule 8(b), and evidently intended for the doctrine of harmless error to be applied to misjoinder under Rule 8(a) as well. 8 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.04[2], p. 8-16. The only question remaining is whether the misjoinder which occurred in this case was harmless error or whether it prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights. The trial court concisely instructed the jury as to the three charges brought against Strickland. After stating what the charges were, the trial judge instructed: There is no particular order in which you are required to consider each of those three counts. The jury is entitled to determine for itself the manner of its deliberation and the order in which it considers these respective counts. I shall instruct the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, however, that it is your duty to consider these counts separately and independently so that your determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused relative to one count should not necessarily require you to decide in the same manner on another count. You are further advised that the grand jury is merely an accusatory body and the return of an indictment does not create any presumption of guilt on the part of the accused. Vol. 2, p. 297-298. The trial judge then instructed the jury on the elements of the crimes charged. During deliberations, the jury foreman sent questions for the trial judge including whether the jurors could have a copy of the instructions. Vol. 2, p. 307. The trial judge called the jurors back into the courtroom and told them they could not have a copy of the instructions. Vol. 7, p. 1611. The trial judge correctly refused to give the jurors a copy of the written jury instructions. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 801 (Official Revision Comment D) (This article does not authorize the jury to take with them a copy of the judge's written charges when they retire to deliberate.); State v. Yoxtheimer, 301 So.2d 318, 320 (La.1974) (trial court did not err in refusing jury written instructions); but see State v. Stracner, 190 La. 457, 182 So. 571 (1938) (judge may allow jury to view written instructions during deliberations); State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831, 138 So. 853 (1932) (same); State v. Riggio, 124 La. 614, 50 So. 600 (1909) (same). Even if this ruling had been error, the jury foreman then informed the trial court that the jury did not really need the instructions. At the present time, we don't need anything. We just wanted those questions answered. Vol. 7, p. 1612. The jury posed no more questions, deliberated and returned with a verdict. The record does not indicate that the jury was confused about the three charges brought against the defendant. The state did not introduce any evidence on the non-capital charges which would not have been admissible at trial of the capital charge alone. Strickland was not precluded from presenting any type of defense by the joinder of the charges. The Court finds that the misjoinder in this case was harmless error and did not prejudice Strickland's substantial rights as to the capital charge. In fact, the only possible prejudice to Strickland does not involve the capital charge at all. Since Strickland was found guilty of first degree murder and was sentenced to death, he has a right of direct appeal to this Court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(D). The briefs and assignments of error to this Court concern only his capital conviction and sentence. Perhaps due to the more serious consequences of the capital conviction and sentence, Strickland's trial counsel did not preserve his appeal rights as to his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Should Strickland desire to appeal his conspiracy conviction and sentence, however, he may file a motion for an out of time appeal in the district court. See State v. Counterman, 475 So.2d 336 (La.1985). Although the district court erred in failing to grant Strickland's motion to quash the indictment for misjoinder of offenses, this Court finds the error harmless.