Opinion ID: 2165153
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Severance was Required

Text: Both Outten and Steven argue that their defenses, as developed at trial, were antagonistic and mandated severance. The Superior Court ruled, however, that the defenses were not. Severance is a matter within the sound discretion of the Trial Court, with the defendant [having] the burden of demonstrating `substantial injustice' and unfair prejudice, to prove necessity of severance. Lampkins v. State, Del.Supr., 465 A.2d 785, 794 (1983). Both Outten and Steven rely on this Court's decision in Bradley v. State, Del.Supr., 559 A.2d 1234 (1989), to prove necessity. In Bradley the Court held that the antagonistic defenses presented there mandated separate trials. This Court based its decision on the incompatible nature of each codefendant's case: In this case each defendant presented an alibi defense. Their two defenses as they unfolded in this case were so antagonistic that the jury could not accept one defendant's defense without rejecting a central part of the other defendant's defense. Moreover, throughout the trial, the jury was witness to repeated attempts by each defendant to incriminate the other. A fair trial is not possible under these circumstances, and a severance should have been granted. Id. at 1241. The Court, however, limited the application of Bradley: Antagonistic defenses between codefendants is a fact to be considered when determining whether a severance should be granted. However, it is clear that the presence of hostility between a defendant and his codefendant or mere inconsistencies in defenses or trial strategies do not require a severance. Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Annotation, Antagonistic Defenses as Ground for Separate Trials of Codefendants in Criminal Case, 82 A.L.R.3d § 2, at 250 (1978)). In Bradley the defendants took the stand, presented contradicting and mutually exclusive alibis, and introduced evidence that strongly implicated one another. Id. There was no such antagonism in the instant case. Neither Outten nor Steven took the stand, nor presented evidence that implicated the other, except for Steven's offer of the Borsello testimony late in the trial. [6] The defendants' defenses were not mutually exclusive, and the jury easily could have found one defendant, both or neither defendant guilty. Neither defendant has met his burden of demonstrating substantial injustice and unfair prejudice requisite for showing the necessity of separate trials. Thus the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to sever.