Court Opinion

ID: 9690392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:10:32.141715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.512055
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion in order to note a potentially fatal defect in connection with Bills of Exceptions Nos. 25, 26, and 27. These bills were reserved to the refusal to quash the indictment and the overruling of a motion for a mistrial. The basis of the objections was the failure to sever the indictment which charged two persons, the defendant and another, with the commission of the offense.
In this case I concur rather than dissent because this defendant had notice in advance of trial of the severance. Further,, the jury did not have any knowledge that another person was also charged in the same indictment because the court reporter read the indictment to the jury without mention of the other person. There was. no prejudice to the defendant under these circumstances.
Failure to sever could result in a finding that there is no valid indictment as to a defendant on trial when he has been charged jointly with another but tried alone. In the future I would be compelled to conclude that an omission to file separate indictments is inexcusable.
The majority fails to consider the Code of Criminal Procedure articles pertinent to the issue presented by these bills of exceptions :
“Art. 704. Severance
“Jointly indicted defendants shall be tried jointly unless:
“(1) The state elects to try them separately ; or
“(2) The court, on motion of the defendant, and after contradictor}' hearing with the district attorney, is satisfied that justice requires a severance.”
“Art. 705. Effects of severance
“When the court has ordered severance of an indictment, the district attorney shall file separate indictments.
*58“In the case of a grand jury indictment,' no further action by the grand jury is required. Severed indictments shall be considered as filed on the date of the filing of the original indictment. Proceedings under the original indictment are not affected by the severance except insofar as they may be inconsistent with some other provision of this Code. The effects of a severance, as stated in this article, apply to severances under Articles 532(3) and 704.” (Emphasis. supplied.)
These articles demand the filing of separate indictments not only when the defendant moves for and is granted a severance, but also when the State severs voluntarily. The last sentence of Article 705 does not limit the application of the requirements of that article to severances obtained by the defendant; rather, it states that all severances made under the authority of Article 704 are subject to the effects of Article 705. This includes severances made at the election of the State. See Comment (a) of Article 705.
A physical severance — separation of the indictment — is required and cannot be achieved by the judge, or anyone else, orally amending the indictment by deletion of that portion concerning the other person charged.
For these reasons I concur.