Loren v. State

23 Citing cases

  1. Walter v. State

    304 Ga. 760 (Ga. 2018)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that severance was not required where the co-defendants blamed the defendant for the shooting while asserting that they were not present during or did not participate in the murder

    But that is a distinction without a difference under our case law; we have characterized as "antagonistic" a defendant’s position that a crime was committed not by him but by a co-defendant. See, e.g., Metz v. State, 284 Ga. 614, 616 (2) (a), 669 S.E.2d 121 (2008) (appellant argued that co-defendants stabbed victim, while they accused appellant), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1), 718 S.E.2d 232 (2011) ; Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792, 795 (2), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997) (co-defendants "each presented vigorous defenses attempting to show that the other caused the fatal injuries"). In order to obtain a new trial based on the trial court’s denial of severance, Walter must show a "clear prejudice and denial of due process" as a result of his co-defendants' antagonistic defenses that might have been avoided by separate trials.

  2. Holland v. State

    310 Ga. App. 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Remanding case to trial court to exercise discretion in sentencing where it appeared from record that trial court may not have exercised its discretion

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Loren v State, 268 Ga. 792, 795 (2) ( 493 SE2d 175) (1997). With regard to Holland's first claim, there is nothing in the record to show that the defense attorneys disagreed about evidence concerning the van's registration.

  3. Sims v. State

    297 Ga. 401 (Ga. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Recognizing distinction between audible communication in recording that is subject to one-party-consent rule and video recording that is not

    1. The evidence is sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; see Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792(1), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997). 2.

  4. West v. State

    757 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. 2014)

    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). See also McClellan v. State, 274 Ga. 819, 819–820(1)(a), 561 S.E.2d 82 (2002); Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792, 794(1), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997). 2.

  5. Coe v. State

    293 Ga. 233 (Ga. 2013)   Cited 19 times

    Although Coe asserts that defendants had antagonistic defenses, each asserting that he was defending himself from the other, antagonistic defenses alone are not sufficient to mandate severance; Coe must also demonstrate harm from the failure to sever. Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792, 795(2), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997). And, Coe does not point to any evidence produced against him in this joint trial that would not have been admitted in a separate trial, Butler, supra, and thus fails to show specific prejudice from the presentation of his and Mingledolph's defenses at the joint trial.

  6. Griffin v. State

    292 Ga. 321 (Ga. 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that evidence that the defendant was angry with the victim because the victim had failed to pay the defendant for drugs was admissible to show motive for the crimes, even though it incidentally placed the defendant's character in issue

    Neither co-defendant testified or made any statement admitted at trial placing Boyd at the scene of the crime. The fact that counsel for Smith elicited responses from some witnesses confirming their testimony that Boyd was the primary participant in the kicking of Clark after Griffin knocked him to the ground was merely cumulative of the State's evidence against Boyd. See Rhodes v. State, 279 Ga. 587, 590, 619 S.E.2d 659 (2005); Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792(2), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997). Accordingly, Boyd failed to show any harm from the joint trial and the trial court acted within its discretion by denying the motion to sever.

  7. McLean v. State

    291 Ga. 873 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that the defendant's confrontation rights were not violated at a joint trial where evidence introduced that a non-testifying co-defendant made a statement after the shooting that "they" had thrown agun out of the car because the statement did not directly implicate the defendant

    In any event, antagonistic defenses alone are not sufficient to mandate severance; McLean must also demonstrate harm from the failure to sever. Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792, 795(2), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997). McLean does not point to any evidence produced against him in this joint trial that would not have been admitted in a separate trial, Butler, supra, and he fails to show specific prejudice from the presentation of his and Herbert's defenses at the joint trial.

  8. Rogers v. State

    289 Ga. 675 (Ga. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that the interviewing officer's statement that the suspect should "help [him]self" was an encouragement to tell the truth and not an impermissible hope of benefit

    [Cit.] Rhode v. State, 274 Ga. 377, 382(10)(c), 552 S.E.2d 855 (2001). See also Braley v. State, 276 Ga. 47, 53(30), 572 S.E.2d 583 (2002); Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792, 796(3), 493 S.E.2d 175 (1997); Edwards v. State, supra at 133, 442 S.E.2d 444. Therefore, the trial court's erroneous failure to charge involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense was harmless.

  9. White v. State

    281 Ga. 276 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 30 times

    White makes no such showing. Walker's only witness had previously testified for the State, and that evidence, as well as evidence flowing from Walker's cross-examinations of witnesses that arguably could be construed as implicating White, was merely cumulative of the State's evidence against her. See Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792 (2) ( 493 SE2d 175) (1997). White nonetheless asserts that she was harmed by her inability to call Walker to testify, that evidence against Walker might have "spilled over" to her and been considered against her, and that she was forced, by virtue of the chance of a coin toss, to give her closing argument before Walker.

  10. Rhodes v. State

    279 Ga. 587 (Ga. 2005)   Cited 24 times

    To the extent that Rhodes' defense may have been antagonistic to that of her co-defendant, that factor in itself is insufficient to warrant the grant of a separate trial absent a showing of harm. Holmes v. State, 272 Ga. 517 (2) ( 529 SE2d 879) (2000). Rhodes has failed to make any showing that antagonism between Collum and herself was harmful to her. Evidence offered by Collum that arguably could be construed as implicating Rhodes was merely cumulative of the State's evidence against her. See Loren v. State, 268 Ga. 792 (2) ( 493 SE2d 175) (1997). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to sever.