State Of Louisiana v. Dennis Perkins

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