Chartier v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 47908.,47908. |
| Citation | 191 P.3d 1182 |
| Parties | John Douglas CHARTIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
JoNell Thomas, Las Vegas; Megan C. Hoffman, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, Carson City; David J. Roger, District Attorney, James Tufteland, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and David L. Stanton, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to sever appellant John Douglas Chartier's trial from that of his codefendant, David Wilcox. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sever Chartier's trial from Wilcox's trial. Chartier suffered unfair prejudice because the cumulative effect of the joint trial violated Chartier's right to a fair trial by preventing the jury from making a reliable judgment as to his guilt or innocence. For this reason, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand to the district court for a new trial.
In the early morning hours of August 18, 2004, Rachel Bernat and her father, Carlos Aragon, were stabbed to death outside their home in Las Vegas. In addition to Bernat and Aragon, Bernat's two young daughters and her mother, Iola Jean Taylor, were living in the home at the time of the murders. Bernat's daughters were sleeping on the living room floor at the time and were awakened by their mother's cries for help.
Bernat's then ten-year-old daughter testified before the grand jury and at trial that from the living room floor she was able to see a person holding a knife and stabbing her mother. At first, Bernat's daughter told officers that she thought the assailant was Bernat's ex-husband, Chartier, but later recanted that statement. Taylor, upon hearing Bernat's screams, made her way to the front door and attempted to fend off Bernat's attacker with her cane and drag Bernat back into the house. The attacker grabbed the cane from Taylor and struck her with it and then continued to stab Bernat. Taylor testified that she was "positive" that the man she saw stabbing her daughter was not Chartier. Aragon was stabbed twice and murdered somewhere near his van parked in the driveway.
At the time of the murders, Bernat and Chartier were involved in a child custody battle over their young son. Months before the killings, the Clark County Family Court granted Bernat's request for permission to move to another state with the boy. The court also granted Chartier visitation for seven weeks in the summer. Pursuant to the court's order, their son was in Chartier's custody at the time of the murders. By all accounts, Chartier was upset about the custody arrangement.
In the years prior to the murders, Chartier had developed a friendship with David Wilcox, one of Chartier's employees. Wilcox had an extensive military background as a sniper, a fact that intrigued Chartier. The two began a friendship out of Chartier's admiration for Wilcox, which lead to Chartier living with Wilcox and his wife, Cindy, for a short time after his divorce from Bernat. Following the murders, Cindy turned over a suicide letter written by Chartier in June of 2002. The letter was addressed to Wilcox and asked him to "take out mom and grandpa" with a parenthetical explaining that grandpa was Aragon. The letter also instructed Wilcox to take custody of Chartier's young son and to destroy the letter before police arrived.
The State prosecuted Wilcox and Chartier for the murders on the theory that Chartier wanted Bernat dead because of the custody dispute and that he recruited Wilcox to carry out the murders. They were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit murder and two counts of murder with the use of a deadly weapon. To support its theory, the State called several witnesses who testified to Chartier's arrears in child support payments and to statements Chartier made that Bernat "deserved to be killed." Several witnesses also testified to Chartier's unusual relationship with Wilcox.
Chartier and Wilcox were tried together after the district court denied Chartier's motion to sever. At trial, Chartier defended primarily on the grounds that he had no motive to kill Bernat and Aragon because he felt that the custody issue was resolved largely in his favor and that he had an alibi. Chartier's then-girlfriend, Sharon Sutton, testified that Chartier was home with her the night of the murders and was in bed with her that morning. Wilcox's defense was that not only did he have no personal motive to kill Bernat and Aragon, but that Chartier was the mastermind and killer.
Chartier and Wilcox were convicted on all three charges following a five-day jury trial. Both men were sentenced to consecutive sentences of life without parole for each count of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and four to ten years for conspiracy to commit murder.
Chartier raises numerous issues on appeal. Of those issues, we address only one: whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to sever Chartier's trial from that of Wilcox.1 We conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Chartier's motion to sever his trial from Wilcox's trial because the cumulative effect of joinder was so prejudicial as to affect Chartier's right to a fair trial.
Chartier offers three arguments to support his contention that the district court should have severed his trial from Wilcox's trial. First, Chartier argues that his defense was so antagonistic to Wilcox's defense as to render the trial unfair. Second, Chartier claims that his ability to prove his theory of the defense was impaired by the joinder. Third, Chartier argues that the cumulative effect of his and Wilcox's mutually antagonistic defenses and Chartier's inability to prove his theory of the case resulted in irreparable harm and prejudice such that an injurious effect was had upon the verdict. We agree with Chartier's argument that the cumulative effect of the joint trial warrants reversal and that the district court abused its discretion by denying Chartier's motion to sever.
NRS 174.165(1) provides that a trial judge may sever a joint trial if "it appears that a defendant ... is prejudiced by a joinder of ... defendants ... for trial together." Further, "[t]he decision to sever a joint trial is vested in the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed on appeal unless the appellant `carries the heavy burden' of showing that the trial judge abused his discretion."2 Although we have long recognized that some level of prejudice exists in a joint trial, error in refusing to sever joint trials is subject to harmless error review.3 "To establish that joinder was prejudicial requires more than simply showing that severance made acquittal more likely; misjoinder requires reversal only if it has a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict."4
"[D]istrict courts must determine the risk of prejudice from a joint trial based on the facts of each case."5 "A district court should grant a severance `only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence.'"6 Conflicting defenses may cause prejudice warranting severance if the defendant seeking severance shows that the codefendants have "`conflicting and irreconcilable defenses and there is danger that the jury will unjustifiably infer that this conflict alone demonstrates that both are guilty.'"7 The district court's duty to consider the potential prejudice that may result from a joint trial does not end with the denial of a pretrial motion to sever. Rather, as this court has recognized, "the district court has `a continuing duty at all stages of the trial to grant a severance if prejudice does appear.'"8
We hold that the cumulative effect of the joint trial in this case was not harmless because the joinder had an injurious effect on the verdict as demonstrated by the conflicting and irreconcilable defenses in this case. Chartier defended on the basis that he was not involved in the crimes at any stage of planning or execution and that Wilcox committed the murders of his own volition out of a misguided desire to "help" Chartier. In contrast, Wilcox defended on the theory that Chartier was not only the mastermind but that he was present at the scene and Wilcox acted at Chartier's direction. Additionally, because of the joinder, Chartier was precluded from questioning Wilcox as to the reasons why he kept a suicide note that was several years old. Finally, during cross-examination of witnesses called by the State against Chartier, Wilcox was able to emphasize to the jury the highly contentious nature of Chartier's custody dispute with Bernat, which likely improperly influenced the jury and highlighted the conflict between Chartier's and Wilcox's defenses. While standing alone these instances are not enough to warrant a severance, we conclude that the cumulative effect resulted in an injurious impact on the jury's verdict. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by failing to sever the trials, and a reversal of Chartier's convictions is warranted.
Antagonistic defenses
Chartier cites several examples for why his and Wilcox's defenses were mutually antagonistic. First, Chartier argues that Wilcox's theory of the case was so antithetical to even the State's case that a second prosecution of Chartier was created. Accordingly, Chartier argues that Wilcox presented a theory that Chartier was in fact the murderer and present at the scene, even though the State's case against Chartier was presented under a conspiracy theory. Therefore, Chartier argues that he was subject to defending himself under multiple theories of the crime. Second, Chartier contends that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnside v. State
...1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. See Chartier v. State, 124 Nev. 760, 764, 191 P.3d 1182, 1185 (2008) (applying abuse of discretion standard to NRS 174.165(1) severance issue).Allegation that a juror was sleeping Burn......
-
Rimer v. State
...guilty. We review a district court's determination of whether to sever a joint trial for abuse of discretion. Chartier v. State, 124 Nev. 760, 763–64, 191 P.3d 1182, 1184–85 (2008). A joint trial must be severed “ ‘if there is a serious risk that [it] would compromise a specific trial right......
-
Turner v. Baker
...or prevent the jury from reliably determining guilt, as where the codefendants have conflicting defenses. See Chartier v. State, 124 Nev. 760, 764-65, 191 P.3d 1182, 1185 (2008). None of the arguments now asserted by Turner would have supported a motion to sever in this case. Trial counsel ......
-
Guy v. State
...as one of guilt or innocence. See, e.g., Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1187, 196 P.3d 465, 475 (2008) ; Chartier v. State, 124 Nev. 760, 762, 191 P.3d 1182, 1183–84 (2008) ; Browning v. State, 124 Nev. 517, 527, 188 P.3d 60, 67 (2008). And other instructions clearly instructed the jury th......