Opinion ID: 2441634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance Arguments

Text: The Prosecuting Attorney jointly charged Misskelley, Echols and Baldwin with the three capital murders. The trial court granted a severance to Misskelley, and he was tried and convicted. That left Echols and Baldwin jointly charged. Prior to their scheduled trial, both moved for severance, and each renewed the motions at various times during the trial, including at the close of the State's case. Neither argued for a severance of the three capital murder charges; rather, each argued that he should be granted a separate trial from the other. The trial court denied all of the motions. Both Echols and Baldwin assign as error the trial court's rulings denying them separate trials. Joinder and severance procedure is governed by Ark.R.Crim.P. Article VI. These rules are calculated to promote the expeditious disposition of criminal cases without putting undue strain on prosecutorial or judicial resources, but, at the same time, without causing prejudice to joint defendants. Rule 21.2 provides for the joinder of defendants when the crimes were part of a joint scheme or plan and so the capital murder charges were properly joined. The issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a severance for the accuseds' trials. Rule 22.3 provides that a trial court shall grant a severance if it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one of the defendants. Trial courts have discretion to grant or deny a severance and on appeal we will not disturb the ruling in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. Hallman v. State, 264 Ark. 900, 575 S.W.2d 688 (1979). In McDaniel v. State, 278 Ark. 631, 648 S.W.2d 57 (1983), we held that, in determining whether to grant a severance, a trial court should weigh: (1) whether the defenses of the defendants are antagonistic; (2) whether it is difficult to segregate the evidence; (3) whether there is a lack of substantial evidence implicating one defendant except for the accusation of the other defendant; (4) whether one defendant could have deprived the other of all peremptory challenges; (5) whether one defendant will be compelled to testify if the other does so; (6) whether one defendant has no prior criminal record and the other has; (7) whether circumstantial evidence against one defendant appears stronger than against the other. Id. at 638, 648 S.W.2d at 59. Subsequently, in Rhodes v. State, 280 Ark. 156, 655 S.W.2d 421 (1983), we said that McDaniel does not say that in every case, even in capital cases, where antagonistic defenses are presented the trial court must grant a severance, but merely that when defenses are antagonistic the trial court must be particularly careful that neither defendant is unduly jeopardized by a joint trial. Id. at 158-59, 655 S.W.2d at 422. More recently, we have written that the presence of any one of the factors does not necessarily require severance, as there are multiple factors to consider. Rockett v. State, 319 Ark. 335, 891 S.W.2d 366 (1995). Almost all of the factors clearly weigh in favor of a joint trial. The joint trial was lengthy, lasting seventeen days, and perhaps separate trials would have taken twice as long and required twice as many jurors; the evidence was not difficult for the jury to segregate; the evidence was not significantly stronger against one defendant than the other; the testimony of one did not compel the other to testify; and there was no significant disparity in criminal records of the defendants. The trial judge made various comments when denying the severance motions, and those comments reflect that he thought the jurors could distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently to each offense and to each defendant. The only argument that is of any consequence is the argument about antagonistic defenses. Echols and Baldwin argue that they had conflicting trial strategies, and, as a result, their defenses were antagonistic. The State's response is that antagonistic defenses arise only when each defendant asserts his innocence and accuses the other of the crime. Certainly, we have held that antagonistic defenses arise when each defendant asserts his innocence and accuses the other of the crime, and the evidence cannot be successfully segregated. Cooper v. State, 324 Ark. 135, 919 S.W.2d 205 (1996); Butler v. State, 303 Ark. 380, 797 S.W.2d 435 (1990); and McDaniel v. State, supra . But those are not the facts before us. Closer to the facts of this case, but not wholly dispositive of the argument, we have held that when there was no reason the jury could not have believed both defenses, the defenses were not antagonistic. Cooper v. State, 324 Ark. at 140, 919 S.W.2d at 209. Other courts have similarly held that where there was an evidentiary basis for the jury to decide each defendant's case separately, there is no error in denying severance just because of inconsistent strategies. E.g., United States v. Jenkins, 496 F.2d 57 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1119, 43 L.Ed.2d 394 (1975); see also Wade R. Habeeb, Annotation, Antagonistic Defenses as Ground for Separate Trials of Codefendants in Criminal Case, 82 A.L.R.3d 245, 264 (1978). Correspondingly, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has written: [W]e hold that the defense of a defendant reaches a level of antagonism (with respect to the defense of a co-defendant) that compels severance of the defendant, if the jury, in order to believe the core of the testimony offered on behalf of that defendant, must necessarily disbelieve the testimony offered on behalf of this co-defendant. United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals followed the Fifth Circuit's statement and applied it with the following four-step analysis: (1) Do the alleged conflicts with co-defendant's defenses go to the essence of the appellant's defense? (2) Could the jury reasonably construct a sequence of events that accommodates the essence of both defendants' defenses? (3) Did the conflict subject the appellant to compelling prejudice? (4) Could the trial judge ameliorate the prejudice? Smith v. Kelso, 863 F.2d 1564, 1568 (11th Cir.1989). In summary, unless conflicting strategies go to the essence of co-defendants' defenses, and the conflicting strategies are so great that both defendants' defenses cannot be accommodated by the jury, a trial court is not required to grant a severance. Here, the alleged conflicting strategies did not reach that level. The defense of each, in effect, was that he did not commit the crimes. Echols presented an alibi defense that he was visiting friends with his parents when the murders took place. Baldwin likewise presented an alibi defense that relied upon the fact that he was at school the day of the murders, was at home by ten o'clock that night, and was never placed near the scene. Echols's arguments about conflicting strategy because of pretrial publicity and the reason he took the name Damien did not go to the essence of his defense and did not conflict with Baldwin's defense. Similarly, Baldwin's complaints that Echols was placed near the scene, but he was not seen there, do not go to the core of his defense that he had nothing to do with the crimes. The contention that Baldwin could have possibly argued that Echols placed the knife behind his trailer does not relate to the core of his general denial. Baldwin contends he was entitled to a severance because Echols testified at trial, but nowhere in Echols's testimony did he implicate Baldwin. These alleged conflicts in strategy did not subject either defendant to a compelling prejudice. The only alleged conflicts in strategy that are of any significance are Echols's allegation that Baldwin said that he was under the influence of Echols, and the complaints of both appellants that their strategy conflicted on how to deal with the evidence of the occult activities. Echols's argument about Baldwin stating that he acted under his influence is factually inaccurate. That statement was made during counsel's closing argument, and counsel actually said that Baldwin might be vulnerable to a finding of guilt by association, since he and Echols were friends. This statement by counsel, apparently made in derision of the prosecution, clearly did not cause a conflict with Echols to the extent that it mandated severance. Thus, we are left with only the complaints about strategy in how to deal with the evidence of occult activities. Echols contends that his strategy would have been to openly admit all evidence of satanic worship in order to show its absurdity, while Baldwin contends that he wanted to exclude all of the evidence. Again, this alleged difference in strategy did not go to the general denial. Moreover, the jury obviously did not think the proof of occultism was absurd, and it is doubtful that Echols would have freely admitted satanic worship as a matter of strategy, even if he had a real choice in the matter. Even had the trial court granted motions for severance, the expert testimony would have been admitted in a trial against Echols, and it also would have been admitted against Baldwin, because of Michael Carson's statement that Baldwin told him he sucked blood from Christopher Byers, a satanic-type act. In sum, this alleged difference in strategy did not go to the essence of either defense, did not prevent the jury from considering either defense, did not unduly jeopardize a fair trial, and did not mandate a severance. Baldwin separately argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a severance when the deputy prosecutor questioned Echols about his doodles on a piece of paper. The argument is procedurally barred. Baldwin's argument to the trial court was that he was not notified, through discovery, of the paper. He argues to this court, as he did to the trial court, that the questioning, coupled with the fact that he was not provided the paper during discovery, entitled him to a severance. At trial the deputy prosecutor acknowledged that the State had inadvertently violated the discovery rules. Baldwin responded that he would be satisfied with a cautionary instruction to the jury that the testimony on this point could only be used against Echols. The trial court gave the requested cautionary instruction. Baldwin's counsel responded, That satisfies us, Your Honor. Baldwin's counsel again requested a severance, but did not mention the piece of paper with the doodles on it. The trial court denied the motion and again instructed the jury to consider the evidence only against Echols, and not Baldwin. Thus, Baldwin did not ask for a severance because of admission of a piece of paper with doodles drawn on it by Echols, and he cannot make the argument for the first time on appeal. Spears v. State, 321 Ark. 504, 905 S.W.2d 828 (1995). Baldwin next argues that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court made a binding commitment to grant a severance if Echols testified, and that Echols testified but the trial court did not grant a severance. In pretrial, the trial court stated that in the event one of them testified, the other might then be compelled to do so, and, There's case law on that, and the other defendant would be entitled to an immediate mistrial. In a similar case, we held that this kind of ruling does not amount to a binding commitment. In Ruiz v. State, 299 Ark. 144, 772 S.W.2d 297 (1989), the trial judge told the defendants that if a conflict developed in selection of jurors, a severance would be granted, because that's the law. Id. at 151, 772 S.W.2d at 301. This comment was made after the trial judge refused to enlarge each defendant's number of peremptory challenges. Later, the defendants disagreed over some jurors, and moved for a severance, which was denied. Id. We held that the trial judge had not made a binding commitment, but had alluded to the law as set forth in McDaniel v. State , which states that one factor favoring severance is when one defendant deprives the other of peremptory challenges. We held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying severance when the facts had not developed to that point. Similarly, Echols did not implicate Baldwin when he testified, and, as a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the severance. Baldwin next insists that severance was required in these capital cases as a matter of law. Before the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, the trial court had discretion to grant severance of defendants in all cases except capital cases, where they were granted severance as a matter of right under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-1802 (Repl.1977). Baldwin contends that the statute, an initiated act, is still in effect. To the contrary, in McDaniel v. State, 278 Ark. 631, 648 S.W.2d 57 (1983), we held that the cited statute had been superseded by Ark.R.Crim.P. 22, which gives the trial court discretion to grant or deny a severance in all cases. Id. at 636, 648 S.W.2d at 59. In Hallman v. State, 264 Ark. 900, 575 S.W.2d 688 (1979), we held that since the adoption of Ark.R.Crim.P. 22, capital defendants no longer have a right to separate trials. Id. at 904, 575 S.W.2d at 691. However, in Clines v. State, 282 Ark. 541, 543, 669 S.W.2d 883, 885 (1984), in dicta in a per curiam opinion, the court expressed doubt as to whether the act had been superseded. We should not have expressed any doubt about the matter in Clines because our holdings in McDaniel and Hallman are clear that the act has been superseded by Ark. R.Crim.P. 22. Moreover, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-1802 has been repealed. The General Assembly adopted the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated by Act 267 of 1987. Section 4(a) of Act 267, codified as Ark.Code Ann. § 1-2-103(a) (1987), specifically provides that [a]ll acts, codes and statutes, and all parts of them and all amendments to them of a general and permanent nature in effect on December 31, 1987 are repealed, with some exceptions not material to this case. Section 4(a) of Act 267 repealed Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-1802 and did not reenact it. Ninety-seven of the one hundred members of the House voted for Act 267, and thirty-three of the thirtyfive members of the Senate voted for it. 2 Journal of the House 1699 (1987); 3 Journal of the Senate 2134-35 (1987). Thus, Act 267 had the two-thirds vote needed from each chamber of the General Assembly to repeal an initiated act under Amendment 7.