State Of Louisiana v. Dennis Perkins ( 2021 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 0757
VERSUS
DENNIS PERKINS JULY 7, 2021
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,
21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston,
No. 40, 299.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH AND WOLFE, JJ.
WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. The State failed to
include all of the evidence by the trial court in
considered
ruling on the motion to sever in the writ application filed with
this court.
VGW
EW
Welch, J., dissents and would grant the writ application.
An implied antagonistic defense is insufficient to prove
entitlement to a severance. There must be proof of actual
antagonistic defenses. While courts have permitted a severance
to co- defendants whose defenses are antagonistic to each other,
such severance is allowed when the defenses of the co- defendants
are mutually antagonistic to the extent that one co- defendant
attempts to blame the other, causing each defendant to defend
against both his co- defendant and the State. State v. Dilosa,
2001- 0024 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 9/ 03), 849 So. 2d 657, 669, writ
denied, 2003- 1601 ( La. 12/ 12/ 03), 860 So. 2d 1153; State v.
Williams, 2016- 417 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 8/ 30/ 17), 227 So. 3d 371,
394, writ denied, 2017- 1663 ( La. 9/ 14/ 18), 252 So. 3d 483.
Although defendant may have established an anticipated
justification defense by his co- defendant, he failed to show or
even indicate a correlating defense against his co- defendant or
how the assertion of such a defense will be unduly prejudicial.
As there was no actual proof of antagonistic defenses presented
to the trial court, I believe the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering severance in this case.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT