☢ test - Í

Moses v. State, 265 Ga.App. 203, 593 S.E.2d 372 (January 16, 2004). Severance is not required merely because similar transaction evidence is admitted as to some co-defendants and not others. “[W]here an appropriate limiting instruction is given and the evidence does not directly implicate the movant, severance is not required. Hannah v. State, 261 Ga. 336, 337 (404 S.E.2d 440) (1991).” Strozier v. State, 277 Ga. 78, 586 S.E.2d 309 (September 15, 2003). “[T]he fact that the evidence as to one of two co- defendants is stronger does not demand a finding that the denial of a severance motion is an abuse of discretion, where there is evidence showing that the defendants acted in concert.” Accord, Taylor v. State , 285 Ga.App. 697, 647 S.E.2d 381 (June 6, 2007). Sutton v. State, 263 Ga.App. 188, 587 S.E.2d 379 (September 12, 2003). The fact that both co-defendants chose not to testify at trial means that their defenses were not antagonistic to each other. The fact that co-defendant’s attorney made comments during opening statements conflicting with Sutton’s defense is inapposite because, “as the judge correctly instructed the jury, such statements by attorneys are not evidence.” Anderson v. State, 261 Ga.App. 456, 582 S.E.2d 575 (June 3, 2003). “‘ The mere fact that co-defendants’ defenses are antagonistic is not sufficient in itself to warrant the grant of a separate trial absent a showing of harm .’ ‘The burden is on the defendant requesting a severance of trials to make a clear showing of prejudice and denial of due process.’ Neither [co-defendant] has made this showing. The record reveals that the trial court carefully considered whether the number of defendants would confuse the jury and actively took steps to prevent any such confusion. In addition, the evidence against both [defendants] was not disproportional to that against their fellow co-defendants. And, finally, the co- defendants’ defenses in this case were not so antagonistic as to affect each other’s rights. The trial court did not err.” Accord, Mason v. State , 279 Ga. 636, 619 S.E.2d 621 (September 19, 2005). Avellaneda v. State, 261 Ga.App. 83, 581 S.E.2d 701 (April 30, 2003). After granting severance motion, trial court properly refused to control order of co-defendants’ trials. Absent showing of prejudice, state, not trial court, gets to choose order of trials where severance granted. OCGA § 17-8-4. A co-defendant’s conditional offer to testify is not sufficient. Test is apparently the same as for severance based on the need for co-defendant’s testimony: “the defendant must prove: ‘(1) a bona fide need for the testimony; (2) the substance of the testimony; (3) its exculpatory nature and effect; and (4) that the co-defendant will in fact testify if the cases are severed.’” Hearsay from a third party about the substance of the co-defendant’s testimony or knowledge is insufficient. See also King (November 30, 2000), below. Accord, Williams v. State , 308 Ga.App. 464, 708 S.E.2d 32 (March 16, 2011). Harris v. State, 257 Ga.App. 42, 570 S.E.2d 353 (August 14, 2002). Defendant contended that his trial for armed robbery and other offenses should have been severed from co-defendant’s, due to their conflicting defenses. Held, this conflict alone did not require severance, and trial court properly exercised its discretion. “In ruling on a motion for severance, the trial court must consider: (1) whether the number of defendants creates confusion as to the law and evidence to be applied to each; (2) whether a danger exists that evidence admissible against one defendant might be considered against the other notwithstanding instructions to the contrary; and (3) whether the defenses are antagonistic to each other or each other’s rights.” Despite antagonistic defenses, “[w]here, as here, both defendants testify and have the opportunity to fully cross- examine the other, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to sever the trial.” Accord, Williams v. State , 280 Ga. 584, 630 S.E.2d 370 (May 8, 2006) (no prejudice to defendant from evidence that only implicated co-defendant). King v. State, 273 Ga. 258, 539 S.E.2d 783 (November 30, 2000). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed. “King has failed to show a violation of any of his legal rights by the State’s decision to prosecute him before Walter Smith. See OCGA § 17-8-4 (‘When separate trials are ordered in any case, the defendants shall be tried in the order requested by the state.’).” See also Avellaneda (April 30, 2003), above. Sharpe v. State , 272 Ga. 684, 531 S.E.2d 84 (May 30, 2000). In joint trial of four co-defendants for murder, no severance required. “According to Appellants, the number of defendants created confusion, and they point to the fact that one juror asked the trial court to place nameplates in front of them. However, the record does not indicate anything more than this one, slight instance of confusion early in the trial, which the trial court handled without objection by having the defense attorneys introduce their clients.” Holmes v. State , 272 Ga. 517, 529 S.E.2d 879 (May 8, 2000). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in