Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying a severance.

Text: ś 33. The brothers argue that the trial court committed reversible error by denying their motion for severance. ś 34. A joint indictment of a felony does not entitle a defendant to separate trials. Carter v. State, 799 So.2d 40, 44 (Miss.2001). The grant or denial of a motion for severance is at the discretion of the trial judge. Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 777 (Miss.1984). The decision of the lower court to grant or deny a motion for severance is reversible only where it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870, 876 (Miss.1998). Absent a showing of prejudice, there are no grounds to hold that the trial court abused its discretion. Id.; Duckworth v. State, 477 So.2d 935, 937 (Miss.1985)(citing Price v. State, 336 So.2d at 1311, 1312 (Miss.1976)). ś 35. This Court in Strahan v. State, 729 So.2d 800, 803 (Miss.1998)(quoting Hawkins v. State, 538 So.2d 1204, 1207 (Miss.1989)), set forth the following considerations for review: The trial judge has the discretion to grant a severance if it is necessary to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence. In Duckworth v. State, 477 So.2d 935, 937 (Miss. 1985), this Court stated that there are a number of criteria to be used to determine if the denial of a motion for severance is proper. These criteria are whether or not the testimony of one co-defendant tends to exculpate that defendant at the expense of the other defendant and whether the balance of the evidence introduced at trial tends to go more to the guilt of one defendant rather than the other. Absent a showing of prejudice, there are no grounds to hold that the trial court abused its discretion. Id. at 937. See also Jones, 710 So.2d at 876. ś 36. The brothers claim, now after the trial and upon appellate review, that they had mutually antagonistic defenses. According to the brothers, Crimm's best defense would be that Doc killed Pool. Doc's defense would be that Crimm killed Pool when the body was thrown into the river. As for Charles, counsel representing the brothers at trial, which is different than that on appeal, seemed to have no discernable strategy; however, Charles's best defense would be to blame Pool's death on both of his brothers. ś 37. Once again, judging the actions of counsel after the fact and formulating subsequent arguments as to the best trial strategy are viewed with caution. At the hearing there was never any indication that the brothers had mutually antagonistic defenses. Further, the issue of severance was not raised in the brothers' motion for new trial and j.n.o.v. ś 38. At trial, Doc was the only defendant to testify. There was no indication that each witness was exculpating himself at the expense of the other brothers. To the contrary, Doc maintained that when Charles began to come outside, Doc pushed him back to the bar door. Later, Doc testified that Charles was inside the building and had not come out of it. As for Crimm, Doc testified that he never stated that he and Crimm had moved Pool's body. Later, Doc testified that Crimm never came into the parking lot. This is not to say that adverse testimony and contradictory testimony was not elicited, but Doc's testimony did not suggest that he intended to make his brothers culpable for any wrongdoing. ś 39. The severance hearing gave no indication of any conflicts between the brothers. There was no showing that the brothers were prejudiced by the denial of the severance. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for severance. This issue is without merit.