State Of Louisiana v. Dylan Craddock

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 15, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DYLAN CRADDOCK
No. 2023-KK-01147
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Dylan Craddock - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Criminal, Criminal District Court Number(s) 552-728, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-K-0402;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 15, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/15/2023 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-KK-01147
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
DYLAN CRADDOCK
On Supervisory Writ to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans Criminal
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. In this murder trial, Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s
ruling denying his motion for severance . His severance motion was based on the
allegation that he and his co-defendant have antagonistic defenses.
As a general matter, jointly charged defendants shall be tried jointly unless
the state elects to sever or the court determines, after a contradictory hearing, that
justice requires severance. La. C.Cr.P. art. 704. Article 704 does not provide
precise standards to guide a trial court in exercising its discretion in ruling on a
motion for severance. Consequently, this Court has jurisprudentially developed
the “antagonistic defense” standard as a means of testing the trial court’s exercise
of its discretion. State v. Lavigne , 412 So.2d 993, 996 -97 (La. 1982); State v .
Thibodeaux, 315 So.2d 769, 770 (La. 1975). See also State v. McGraw, 366 So.2d
1278 (La. 1978) (discussing the history and development of the “antagonistic
defense” concept in Louisiana). Under the “antagonistic defense” test, i t is an
abuse of discret ion not to grant a motion for severance when the trial judge has
been made aware that a defendant intends to lay blame for the offense at the feet of
a co-defendant. State v. Webb, 424 So. 2d 233, 236 (La. 1982) (citations omitted);
Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.E.2d 476 (1968), 391
U.S. at 136, 88 S.Ct. at 1628 (the extrajudicial statement of a non -testifying co-
November 15, 2023
11/15/23

2

defendant, which implicates the defendant and is admitted at a joint trial, violates
the defendant’s constitutional right of cross-examination.).
In the instant case , the trial court was presented with uncontroverted
evidence that co-defendant, Cody Matthews, was going to blame the Defendant as
the culpable perpetrator of the murder . In particular, the State intends to admit a
jailhouse recording of Matthews that directly implicates the Defendant as the
shooter in the murder.
Under these circumstances, a joint trial would v iolate Defendant’s right to
confront and cross examine the witness against him in violation of Article 1, ⸹16,
of the Louisiana Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; thus, justice requires a severance . Accordingly, we find that the trial
court abused its discretion in denying the motion for severance. For these reasons,
the ruling of the trial court denying the motion for severance of the trial is
reversed; and the case is remanded for further proceedings.