☢ test - Í

Wright v. State, 285 Ga. 57, 673 S.E.2d 249 (February 23, 2009). At defendant’s trial for murder of his five-year old stepdaughter, no ineffective assistance for failing to seek severance from his co-defendant/wife, the child’s mother; while defendant complains of admission of wife’s hearsay statements blaming him for the child’s death, no harm because she took the stand in her own defense and defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine her. “Under these circumstances, counsel was not deficient. See Green v. State, 274 Ga. 686(2), 558 S.E.2d 707 (2002) (where the facts and law were substantially the same, where there was no evidence of any jury confusion, and no evidence was used against the other, and where defendant was allowed to cross-examine his co-defendants, defendant was not entitled to severance); Adams v. State, 271 Ga. 485(2), 521 S.E.2d 575 (1999) (defendant not entitled to severance in regard to a co-defendant's pre-trial antagonistic statement because his testimony was consistent with the statement and the co-defendant was subject to cross-examination during their joint trial).” Taylor v. State, 296 Ga.App. 212, 674 S.E.2d 81 (February 19, 2009). No error denying defendant’s motion for severance as to multiple defendants charged in connection with gang rumble. Antagonistic defenses not sufficient, absent denial of due process; similar transaction evidence, admitted against some defendants, didn’t require severance where trial court gave limiting instruction. “Finally, we note that Taylor and one of his co-defendants were found guilty of two of five counts, while the other co-defendants were acquitted of all charges. The differing verdicts suggest ‘that the jury was not confused by the number of co-defendants and that any purported tension between the defenses presented by the co- defendants did not result in harm’ to Taylor. See Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797, 806(4) (505 S.E.2d 731) (1998).” Accord, Daniel v. State , 285 Ga. 406, 677 S.E.2d 120 (May 18, 2009); Mathis v. State , 299 Ga.App. 831, 684 S.E.2d 6 (July 31, 2009) (“Antagonism between co-defendants is not enough in itself to require severance, rather [Mathis] must also demonstrate that he was harmed by the failure to sever.”); Stewart v. State , 296 Ga. 448, 769 S.E.2d 50 (February 2, 2015) (differing verdicts as to co-defendants indicates jurors’ understanding that they must consider each defendant’s charges separately). Lankford v. State, 295 Ga.App. 590, 672 S.E.2d 534 (January 16, 2009). Fact that one defendant decided to turn state’s evidence mid-trial doesn’t mean trial court abused discretion in denying motion for severance at beginning of trial. Defendants had no antagonistic defenses before trial. “ We can hardly expect trial judges to be clairvoyant and to predict that defendants who are presenting complimentary defenses will later turn on each other. We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to deny severance here.” Overton v. State, 295 Ga.App. 223, 671 S.E.2d 507 (November 26, 2008). In defendants’ RICO prosecution, no error in denying defendants’ request to sever their prosecution from that of other, more culpable defendants. “[T]he defendants were required to do more that raise the possibility that a separate trial would have given them a better chance of obtaining an acquittal. The test is whether the number of defendants will create confusion during the trial; whether the strength of the evidence against one defendant will engulf the others with a ‘spillover’ effect; and whether the defendants' claims are antagonistic to each other's rights. Cain v. State, 235 Ga. 128, 129 (218 S.E.2d 856) (1975). The [defendants'] burden was to make a clear showing of prejudice sufficient to establish a denial of due process. Barnett v. State, 204 Ga.App. 491, 495(2)(b) (420 S.E.2d 43) (1992); Emmett v. State, 199 Ga.App. 650, 652(4) (405 S.E.2d 707) (1991). They have not done so. Because each defendant was charged with the RICO violation, all of the evidence, including the evidence concerning the [other defendants’] actions … was admissible against all the defendants, and would have been admissible even if they had separate trials on the RICO violations. We do not find that the defendants presented antagonistic defenses. Further, the fact that some of the testimony might have been stronger against some of the defendants does not demand a finding that denial of a motion to sever is an abuse of discretion. Martin v. State, 162 Ga.App. 703, 704(2) (292 S.E.2d 864) (1982). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying the defendants' motion to sever some of the parties.” Jackson v. State, 284 Ga. 484, 668 S.E.2d 700 (October 27, 2008). No error in refusing to sever defendant’s trial for burglary and murder from co-defendant’s: “Jackson contends that his defense was hampered by his being tried with Clark, because, unlike Clark, Jackson did not enter the house where the crimes were completed. However, the defendants were not pursuing antagonistic defenses, the evidence of each defendant's role was clear, and the jury was instructed on the law of criminal intent and participation, parties to a crime, and a defendant's mere presence at the crime scene.” Accord, Freeman v. State , 284 Ga. 830, 672 S.E.2d 644 (January 26, 2009). Rivers v. State, 283 Ga. 1, 655 S.E.2d 594 (January 8, 2008). No harm from failure to sever co-defendants’ cases where witnesses identified defendant as shooter, not co-defendant, as defendant contended.