Opinion
2023-KK-01147
11-15-2023
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DYLAN CRADDOCK
IN RE: Dylan Craddock - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 552-728, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-K-0402;
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. In this murder trial, Defendant seeks review of the trial court's ruling denying his motion for severance. His severance motion was based on the allegation that he and his co-defendant have antagonistic defenses.
As a general matter, jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless the state elects to sever or the court determines, after a contradictory hearing, that justice requires severance. La. C.Cr.P. art. 704. Article 704 does not provide precise standards to guide a trial court in exercising its discretion in ruling on a motion for severance. Consequently, this Court has jurisprudentially developed the "antagonistic defense" standard as a means of testing the trial court's exercise of its discretion. State v. Lavigne, 412 So.2d 993, 996-97 (La. 1982); State v. Thibodeaux, 315 So.2d 769, 770 (La. 1975). See also State v. McGraw, 366 So.2d 1278 (La. 1978) (discussing the history and development of the "antagonistic defense" concept in Louisiana). Under the "antagonistic defense" test, it is an abuse of discretion not to grant a motion for severance when the trial judge has been made aware that a defendant intends to lay blame for the offense at the feet of a co-defendant. State v. Webb, 424 So.2d 233, 236 (La. 1982) (citations omitted); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.E.2d 476 (1968), 391 U.S. at 136, 88 S.Ct. at 1628 (the extrajudicial statement of a non-testifying co- defendant, which implicates the defendant and is admitted at a joint trial, violates the defendant's constitutional right of cross-examination.).
In the instant case, the trial court was presented with uncontroverted evidence that co-defendant, Cody Matthews, was going to blame the Defendant as the culpable perpetrator of the murder. In particular, the State intends to admit a jailhouse recording of Matthews that directly implicates the Defendant as the shooter in the murder.
Under these circumstances, a joint trial would violate Defendant's right to confront and cross examine the witness against him in violation of Article 1, ⸹16, of the Louisiana Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; thus, justice requires a severance. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for severance. For these reasons, the ruling of the trial court denying the motion for severance of the trial is reversed; and the case is remanded for further proceedings.