Opinion ID: 2590272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Asserted spillover effect from denial of defendant's severance motion

Text: We concluded above that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for severance, and that whatever error accrued from the admission of the codefendants' redacted statements at the joint trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We must address this issue again, however, because defendant claims the trial court's asserted error at the guilt phase created a spillover effect at the penalty phase of his trial. (19) Defendant contends the denial of his severance motion prejudiced him at the penalty phase of the trial because the joinder of the trial of the three defendants, and the admission of the codefendants' statements, permitted the prosecutor to refer repeatedly to defendant's primary role in the murder. According to defendant, the prosecution emphasized that he was the actual shooternot an accomplice like his codefendantsand, because of this heightened culpability, that defendant should be sentenced to death. Defendant contends this argument was improper and highly prejudicial in light of section 190.3, factor (j), which allows the jury to consider [w]hether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense and his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor. Although the prosecutor referred to section 190.3, factor (j) and remarked upon defendant's primary role in committing the crimes against Kondrath, the comments were fully supported by defendant's own statementin which he admitted robbing, kidnapping, and shooting the victimand the testimony of David Schindler, who saw two men fleeing the scene of the shooting. The prosecutor did not refer at the penalty phase of the trial to the redacted statements of the codefendants, which were not admitted into evidence against defendant, and the jury was instructed not to consider those statements as evidence against defendant at the penalty phase. We concluded above that defendant was not prejudiced by any error in admitting the redacted statements of his codefendants at the guilt phase of the trial. Similarly without merit is defendant's contention that the admission of these statements at the guilt phaseand the related denial of his motion for severanceprejudiced him at the penalty phase of his trial. [14]