Utah Court of Appeals
When does joinder of codefendants require severance in Utah criminal trials? State v. Williams Explained
Summary
Williams was convicted of aggravated kidnapping after a joint trial with a codefendant who was convicted of the lesser offense of unlawful detention. Williams moved for a new trial claiming prejudice from the joint trial because his codefendant’s counsel cast blame on him in closing argument.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Joshua Williams was convicted of aggravated kidnapping following a joint trial with a codefendant. The codefendant was convicted only of the lesser offense of unlawful detention. Williams moved for a new trial under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 24, arguing that he was prejudiced by the joint trial because his codefendant’s counsel cast blame on him during closing argument. Williams claimed this made him appear more culpable than if he had been tried separately, particularly since both defendants had agreed that neither would testify.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Williams demonstrated sufficient prejudice from joinder to warrant a new trial. The court had to determine whether the codefendants’ defenses were “irreconcilable and mutually exclusive” under Utah’s severance standards, or whether the blame-casting was insufficient to establish prejudice.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard to review the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion. The court emphasized that under Utah Code section 77-8a-1 and controlling precedent, antagonistic defenses alone are insufficient to require severance. Rather, severance is required only when defenses “conflict to the point of being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive.” The court found that both defendants used the same strategic approach, focusing on challenging the victim’s credibility and arguing the victim’s actions were voluntary. The jury did not have to reject Williams’s defense to believe the codefendant’s defense.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that practitioners must file severance motions at least five days before trial or waive the right to severance. The opinion clarifies that mere hostility between codefendants or blame-casting is insufficient for severance. Defense attorneys should focus on demonstrating that defenses are truly irreconcilable rather than simply antagonistic. The court’s analysis also shows that ineffective assistance claims based on failure to seek severance will fail without a showing of actual prejudice from the joint trial.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Williams
Citation
2012 UT App 128
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100732-CA
Date Decided
April 26, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on joinder prejudice when codefendants’ defenses are not irreconcilable and mutually exclusive, even if one codefendant’s counsel attempts to cast blame on the other.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s denial of motion for new trial
Practice Tip
File severance motions at least five days before trial to preserve the issue, as failure to timely move waives the right to severance under Utah Code section 77-8a-1(4)(b).
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.