Opinion ID: 2201645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Irreconcilability of Defenses

Text: Appellant Reynolds' defense was that he did not participate in the robbery and was not in the car when it crashed, but rather was in the vicinity of the crash, with injuries to his mouth and forehead, because he had fled a crap game that had turned violent. Appellant Gartrell's defense, on the other hand, was that he did not participate in the robbery because he had merely taken a ride with an unidentified driver who would not stop. However, Gartrell not only admitted he was in the car when it crashed but also placed Reynolds in the front seat, thereby implicating Reynolds, or at least suggesting that Reynolds had fabricated his alibi. The government therefore concedes, and we agree, that there was indeed a `clear and substantial contradiction between the respective defenses,' causing inherent irreconcilability between them. Garris, supra, 559 A.2d at 329 (quoting Tillman, supra, 519 A.2d at 169) (citation omitted).