Opinion ID: 1439116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Joinder of Defendants:

Text: Mingo asserts that, there was virtually no evidence presented at trial which would indicate that the defendants participated in the same act or a transaction which formed a basis for the various counts in the Indictment. We disagree. The joinder of defendants is governed by M.R.Crim.P. 8(b) which allows two or more defendants to be charged in the same indictment if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Id. The disposition of a motion to sever the trial of one defendant from the trial of another lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, and on appeal, we review only for an abuse of discretion. State v. Langill, 567 A.2d 440, 442 (Me.1989). We find no abuse of discretion in this case. Both Mingo and Beggs were charged with the same conduct; both were charged with forcing Cormier to stand on milk crates; withholding a wristband from another Fed IV resident, Robert Deschamp; and forcing a third Fed IV resident, David MacMahon, to stand with weights in his hands for prolonged periods. Furthermore, severing the defendant's trial from that of his co-defendant's in this case would have required great duplication of effort with many of the same witnesses necessary for both trials. As we have previously stated, joint trials are generally favored in the interest of conserving judicial resources, avoiding duplicative trials, minimizing the public expenditure of funds and promptly bringing the accused to trial. State v. Creeger, 576 A.2d 757, 759 (Me. 1990) (quoting State v. Anderson, 409 A.2d 1290, 1297 (Me.1979)). Mingo fails to articulate why the joinder of these defendants was prejudicial. See M.R.Crim.P. 8(d). [2] Because neither Mingo nor Beggs confessed or made any admissions, no Bruton problem existed, see Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) (requiring severance when non-testifying co-defendant confesses to or makes admissions concerning prior criminal conduct or the intent to commit a crime and the confession or admission inculpates the defendant); nor were their defenses antagonistic. State v. Colomy, 407 A.2d 1115, 1117-18 (Me.1979) (upholding joinder of defendants where no Bruton problem and no intimation ... that there would be antagonistic defenses presented).