Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2015 criminal/ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLJ~ID COUNTY, PENNSYLVg2q'IA Vo JERMAINE WATKINS · NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL TERM · · IN RE- DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT day of MAY, 1999, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's request for severance is DENIED. By the Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney R. Mark Thomas, Esquire For the Defendant -sld COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. · · JERMAINE WATKINS · NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL TERM · · IN RE- DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE GUIDO, J. ©PINION AND ORDER OF COUR~ The Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion in which he has raised several issues. Several conferences were held before us to discuss and narrow the issues. The parties were given the opportunity to brief their respective positions. In his brief, as well as at oral argument, Defendant,s counsel indicated that many of the issues raised in his Omnibus Pretrial Motion had been resolved to Defendant's satisfaction or were being abandoned. The only issue left to be addressed by this Court is the Motion to Sever his case from that of his co-defendant Ronnie Johnson. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we are not inclined to grant the motion for severance. FACTUAL STATEMENT This case arises out of a shooting incident that occurred on Memorial Day, May 25, 1998. In the late afternoon, at a crowded park in the Borough of Carlisle, the victim, Anthony Banks, was shot to death on a basketball court. Another victim, Robert Anderson, Jr. was seriously wounded. According to the complaints and informations filed in this matter, the Defendant and his co-defendant Ronnie Johnson are NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL TERM alleged to have been the shooters.~ Both Defendants have ~iven post arrest statements in which they have, to varying de~rees, pointed the'fin~er at the other Defendant. Both the Defendant and Ronnie Johnson have been char~ed with, inter alia, first degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder. The District Attorney has indicated that he intend~ to try both cases to~ether and to seek the death penalty in each case. DISCUSSION The Defendant has moved to sever on the basis that a joint trial would prejudice him because of antagonistic defenses and certain statements ~iven by the co-defendant which implicate him in the murder. He also argues that fairness would dictate that we ~rant his motion to sever because this is a capital case. We are unpersuaded by either argument. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1127 provides that Defendants char~ed in separate informations may be tried to~ether if the offenses charged are based upon the same act or transaction. Rule 1128 allows the Court to order separate trials if it appears that any party may be prejudiced. The decision to sever lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Com~ v. Morale~, 508 Pa. 51 494 A.2d 367 (1985). The fact that co-defendants have conflictin~ or antagonistic ~There were two other individuals who were char~ed in connection with the shootin~ incident. They were alleged to have been in a ~et-away car while the actual shootin~ took place. The char~es a~ainst those two have been resolved short of trial. NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL TERM defenses is not sufficient to warrant separate trials. Com. v. Lambert, 529 Pa. 320, 603 A.2d 568 (1992) . Nor is the fact that the Defendants intend to exculpate themselves by inculpatin~ the other sufficient ~rounds for severance. _Com. v. Kin~, 721 A.2d 763 (Pa. 1998) . Furthermore, where, as in the instant case, 'the Defendants have been char~ed with a conspiracy, a joint trial is preferred. .Com. v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 587 A.2d 1367 (1991) . Defense counsel argues that the admission of the co- defendant's statement into evidence may violate Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation if the co-defendant elects not to testify. ..Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1968). However, we have ~ranted the co- . defendants motion to suppress his statement. Therefore this argument is rendered moot.2 Finally, the Defendant argues that since he is on trial for his life, fairness would require that he have a separate jury. However, we can find no basis in law for this position. To the contrary, Defendants char~ed with capital murder have often been tried to~ether.3 Where, as here, the Defendants are char~ed with several identical crimes, includin~ conspiracy, not the 2Even if the statement had not been suppressed, we are satisfied that any Bruton violation could have been avoided by appropriate redaction as well as a limitin~ instruction to the jury. .Com. v. Washingto~n, 547 Pa. 550, 692 A.2d 1018 (1997). 3The King, .Chester, Washington and Lee cases cited in this opinion all involved murder trials where a motion to sever had been denied and one or both of the Defendants received a sentence of death. NO. 98-2015 CRIMINAL TERM circumstances ~ivin~ rise to the crimes are identical and the witnesses necessary to prove the crimes are the same, joint trials are appropriate and preferred. Com. v. King, supra..Com. v. Lee, 541 Pa. 260 662 A.2d 645 (1995) . Therefore, the Defendant's request to sever this case from 'that of his co- defendant Ronnie Johnson is denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~~ day of MAY, 1999, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's request for severance is DENIED. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Gui do Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney R. Mark Thomas, Esquire For the Defendant -sld