Opinion ID: 1763897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying brawner's motion to sever count one of the indictment.

Text: ¶ 15. Brawner filed a motion to sever count one, the willful murder of Candice Paige Brawner while engaged in the commission of the crime of felonious abuse and/or battery of a child. Brawner argues that he did not kill Paige while in the commission of the crime of felonious abuse and/or battery of a child, but simply shot her, killing her, which would constitute simple murder. Brawner argues that counts two, three, and four involve the underlying felony of robbery, which is not found in count one, and thus count one is not based upon the same acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-7-2 (Rev.2000). Brawner also asserts that failure to sever count one violated his right to due process and a fair trial pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 3, Sections 14 and 26 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, but he offers no case law that supports this assertion. Additionally, Brawner concedes that capital murder may be charged in a multi-count indictment per Woodward v. State, 533 So.2d 418, 421-23 (Miss.1988). ¶ 16. The State argues that all four murders occurred in the same location and at nearly the same time, and that such murders constitute a common scheme under § 99-7-2. The State also claims that it would be impossible to separate evidence concerning the death of Paige Brawner from the deaths of the others, thus making it impractical to try the cases separately. ¶ 17. The statute that controls multi-count indictments states: (1) Two (2) or more offenses which are triable in the same court may be charged in the same indictment with a separate count for each offense if: (a) the offenses are based on the same act or transaction; or (b) the offenses are based on two (2) or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. (2) Where two (2) or more offenses are properly charged in separate counts of a single indictment, all such charges may be tried in a single proceeding. ... Miss.Code Ann. § 99-7-2 (Rev.2000). In Corley v. State, 584 So.2d 769, 772 (Miss. 1991), this Court identified a procedure by which a multi-count indictment may be challenged: When a defendant raises the issue of severance, we recommend that a trial court hold a hearing on the issue. The State, then, has the burden of making a prima facie case showing that the offenses charged fall within the language of the statute allowing multi-count indictments. If the State meets its burden, a defendant may rebut by showing that the offenses were separate and distinct acts or transactions. In making its determination regarding severance, the trial court should pay particular attention to whether the time period between the occurrences is insignificant, whether the evidence proving each count would be admissible to prove each of the other counts, and whether the crimes are interwoven. See Allman v. State, 571 So.2d 244, 248 (Miss.1990); McCarty v. State, 554 So.2d 909, 914-16 (Miss.1989). Corley, 584 So.2d at 772. Additionally, this Court instructed that if this procedure were followed, the Court would review the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard, giving due deference to the trial court's findings. In Corley, the defendant was charged with two counts of attempting to intimidate witnesses. There were two incidents, on the same day, where Corley allegedly almost ran down different men who were to testify against him in an upcoming trial. Although this Court stated that this was a close call, it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for severance. ¶ 18. In the present case, the trial court held a full hearing on the issue. The killings occurred within a few hours and were all part of the common scheme to rob Carl Craft and eliminate any witnesses. Additionally, the murders are interwoven, and the evidence of each murder would be admissible to prove the other murders since all murders occurred at the same place and closely in time. Brawner did not rebut these arguments but simply stated that the killing of the child was not part of any plan or scheme to rob any of the individuals in the Craft home. However, this statement is at odds with Brawner's trial testimony that he killed the child because she could identify him. ¶ 19. In Stevens v. State, 806 So.2d 1031 (Miss.2001), a case similar to the present one, this Court held that four killings which took place in the same home at about the same time, were the result of a common scheme or plan. In Stevens, the defendant was indicted on four counts of capital murder and one count of aggravated assault. The defendant was upset with his ex-wife over the custody and support of their daughter and appeared one day at her home with the alleged intent to kill her. The defendant shot and killed his ex-wife, her husband and 11-year-old son, and the son's 12-year-old friend, who were all in the home at the time. The defendant also shot his daughter in the back with a shotgun, although she was able to escape the home through a window and survived. This Court held that all charges were properly included in a multi-count indictment, as the crimes undisputedly constituted a common scheme or plan. ¶ 20. In Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 1019 (Miss.2001), defendants robbed one woman at gunpoint, then later that evening, robbed and killed another woman, who had no relationship to the first woman. Defendants were charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy, robbery, and capital murder. This Court held that the trial court did not err in trying count two (armed robbery of first woman) and count three (capital murder of second woman) together. The crimes constituted a common scheme or plan to rob individuals that evening. Id. at 1025. Based on these cases, it is clear that in the present case, there was a common scheme or plan to rob at least one of the individuals and kill anyone who might be in the home at the time. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever.