Romano v. State, F-87-133
| Decision Date | 28 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. F-87-133,F-87-133 |
| Citation | 827 P.2d 1335 |
| Parties | John Joseph ROMANO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
John Joseph Romano, appellant, was convicted of Murder in the First Degree in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CRF-86-3920. Punishment was fixed at death, in accordance with the jury's recommendation.
Appellant was tried with his codefendant David Wayne Woodruff. They were accused of murdering and robbing appellant's friend, Lloyd Thompson, on July 19, 1986. The facts of this case are set forth in our opinion in Woodruff v. State, 825 P.2d 273 (Okl.Cr.1992).
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a severance of trial from his codefendant. Appellant's counsel presented a motion for severance on the district court's regular motion docket a few days before trial. The transcript from the hearing conducted on that motion indicates that Woodruff's attorney, who had joined in appellant's motion, told the district judge that "my client will testify that [Romano] did the stabbing, that my client was not an active participant in this particular case...."
This Court held in Murray v. State, 528 P.2d 739 (Okl.Cr.1974), that when defenses of codefendants are mutually antagonistic, pitting the defendants against one another, the trial court abuses its discretion in denying severance. When defenses of codefendants are antagonistic to the degree of being mutually exclusive or irreconcilable, severance is warranted to insure that each will receive a fair trial. "Defenses are antagonistic where each defendant is trying to exculpate himself and inculpate his codefendant." VanWoundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328, 331 (Okl.Cr.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 956, 107 S.Ct. 447, 93 L.Ed.2d 395 (citation omitted). However, the granting of severance is not a matter of right for a criminal defendant. It is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Faubion v. State, 569 P.2d 1022 (Okl.Cr.1977). Accordingly, review by this Court of a trial court's decision is to determine whether there was an abuse of that discretion. Matricia v. State, 726 P.2d 900 (Okl.Cr.1986); Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234 (Okl.Cr.1978).
We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying codefendants' request for severance of trial. There was scant indication that their defenses were in fact antagonistic. The prosecutor argued that this case was similar to those previously decided by this Court as not requiring severance. He cited Master v. State, 702 P.2d 375 (Okl.Cr.1985), and Cooks v. State, 699 P.2d 653 (Okl.Cr.1985), which are cases of codefendants who acted in concert in the crimes of robbery, rape, and murder. The defenses of the confederates were held not to be truly antagonistic when the only significant variation in each defendant's version of the events was who had tied the death producing gag around the victim's head. Codefendants herein did not demonstrate to the trial court how their case was different than those cases.
The defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show he will be prejudiced by the joinder. Hightower v. State, 672 P.2d 671 (Okl.Cr.1983). The codefendants herein did not carry their burden. Yet, the purpose of severance being to prevent prejudice which would deny a fair trial, United States v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3008, 69 L.Ed.2d 390, the burden continued throughout trial to guarantee a fair one. When it became apparent to the trial judge that the defenses of Romano and Woodruff were mutually antagonistic, a mistrial should have been declared.
We noted in our decision in Woodruff that:
The defenses of appellant and Romano are irreconcilable. Appellant testified that he and Romano went to Thompson's apartment to get appellant a job dealing blackjack. An argument ensued between Thompson and Romano, and Romano acting alone killed Thompson. Romano's version is entirely different. He claimed to have originally gone to Thompson's apartment with appellant for the purpose of robbing Thompson. Appellant attacked and killed Thompson after Romano had withdrawn from the scheme and thought the plan had been abandoned.
Judicial economy is an important goal furthered by joint trial of codefendants. Cooks, 699 P.2d at 658. But as important as it is, it does not outweigh a defendant's right to a fair trial and due process of law. The defense attorney has the duty to adequately notify the trial court of antagonistic defenses and to present proper motions requesting severance. The trial court has the duty to inform itself when antagonistic defenses are indicated. It must insure that it is armed with a record complete enough to discern whether defenses are mutually antagonistic.
Because of the foregoing, we hold that the proper procedure to be followed when defenses are purportedly antagonistic is: First, defense counsel should notify the trial court with such a written motion and oral argument as will inform the court of the need for severance of trial. A defense attorney should act with sufficient dispatch so that the trial docket of the court is not disrupted by the possible severance. Defense counsel must disclose to the court enough information that will demonstrate that defendants will be prejudiced by joinder in trial. Although a record should be made of the motion and proceedings thereon, a defendant not wishing to disclose his defense or trial strategy could conduct a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Romano v. State
...and death sentence. The judgment and sentence was reversed for failure to sever his trial from co-defendant Woodruff's. Romano v. State, 827 P.2d 1335, 1338 (Okl.Cr.1992). Stated briefly, Appellant and David Woodruff 1 planned to rob Lloyd Thompson, decedent. They conned their way into dece......
-
Romano v. Oklahoma
...was pending, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned petitioner's conviction for the Thompson murder. See Romano v. Oklahoma, 827 P.2d 1335 (1992) (Romano I ). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that petitioner's trial should have been severed from that of his codefendant......
-
Murphy v. DeWine
...inculpate his co-defendant." [**25] State v. Daniels (1993), 92 Ohio App.3d 473, 486, 636 N.E.2d 336, citing Romano v. State(Okla.Crim.App.1992), 1992 OK CR 11, 827 P.2d 1335; see, also, State v. Kleekamp, Montgomery App. No. 23533, 2010 Ohio 1906, at P103; State v. Walters, Franklin App. N......
-
Romano v. State
...by the fact that Appellant's conviction for the Thompson homicide has been reversed and remanded for a new trial. See Romano v. State, 827 P.2d 1335 (Okl.Cr.1992). As the case was not reversed on the basis of insufficient evidence of guilt, the facts of the Thompson homicide remain relevant......