Opinion ID: 2643677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Co-Defendant

Text: Petitioner raises two assignments of error pertaining to his joint trial with Co-Defendant Cross: that it was error for the circuit court to deny petitioner’s motion to sever their trials, and that it was error to prohibit petitioner’s counsel from commenting upon Mr. Cross’s silence during closing argument. Because his arguments on these two assignments of error overlap, we will address them together. Rule 14(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, “[i]f the joinder of defendants in an indictment, an information, or a consolidation for trial appears to prejudice a defendant or the State, the Court may sever the defendants' trials, or provide whatever other relief that justice requires.” We have held that a trial court’s ruling on a severance motion is considered under an abuse of discretion standard. Syl. Pt. 3, State v. Hatfield, 181 W.Va. 106, 380 S.E.2d 670 (1989) (considering a motion for severance of offenses filed under W.Va. R. Crim. P. 14(a)); Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Rash, 226 W.Va. 35, 697 S.E.2d 71 (2010) (same). We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings under the same standard. Syl. Pt. 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998) (“A trial court’s evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.”) Petitioner argues that he was prejudiced by the joint trial. According to petitioner, the State’s evidence showed Cross to be the more culpable of the two, including that Cross was involved in the fight at the bar and Cross’s victim died. Moreover, Cross’s car was present at the scene of the crime, while petitioner was relying upon an alibi defense. Petitioner says that he had a reason to be in Cincinnati the next day, while Cross did not. Furthermore, petitioner complains that he was unable to call Cross to the stand to force Cross, in front of the jury, to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Petitioner argues that his lawyer could have then commented upon Cross’s silence during closing argument. Petitioner asserts that this would have been helpful to his case because Cross is the only witness who knows for certain whether petitioner was the co-perpetrator. Upon a review of the record and the parties’ arguments, we find no merit to petitioner’s arguments. The evidence against both co-defendants was inextricably intertwined and arose from the same act or transaction, and the co-defendants did not put on conflicting defenses. The desire 3 to draw an inference from the co-defendant’s silence was not grounds to defeat this joinder. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “[i]t is axiomatic that a defendant's failure to testify cannot be used to draw an inference of guilt. Similarly, a co-defendant's failure to testify cannot be used to draw an inference of innocence on behalf of the complaining defendant. See United States v. Marquez, 449 F.2d 89, 93 (2d Cir.1971).” United States v. Najjar, 300 F.3d 466, 475 (4th Cir. 2002). Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever or in prohibiting comments upon Cross’s silence during closing argument.