|
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
86033-5 |
| Title of Case: |
State v. Emery |
| File Date: |
06/14/2012 |
| Oral Argument Date: |
02/28/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
|
Appeal from
Pierce County Superior Court
|
| | 06-1-05953-2 |
| | Honorable Bryan E Chushcoff |
JUSTICES
--------
| Barbara A. Madsen | Signed Majority | |
| Charles W. Johnson | Signed Majority | |
| Tom Chambers | Concurrence Author | |
| Susan Owens | Signed Majority | |
| Mary E. Fairhurst | Majority Author | |
| James M. Johnson | Signed Majority | |
| Debra L. Stephens | Signed Majority | |
| Charles K. Wiggins | Signed Majority | |
| Steven C. González | Signed Majority | |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Petitioner(s) |
| | Lila Jane Silverstein |
| | Washington Appellate Project |
| | 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98101-3647 |
|
| | Valerie Marushige |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 23619 55th Pl S |
| | Kent, WA, 98032-3307 |
|
| | Anthony Marquise. EmeryJr. (Appearing Pro Se) |
| | #327077 |
| | Clallam Bay Corrections Center |
| | 1830 Eagle Crest Way |
| | Clallam Bay,, WA, 98326-9723 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Thomas Charles Roberts |
| | Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney |
| | 930 Tacoma Ave S Rm 946 |
| | Tacoma, WA, 98402-2171 |
State v. Emery (Anthony Marquise, Jr.)
State v. Olson (Aaron Edward)
No. 86033-5
CHAMBERS, J. (concurring) -- I concur in result. However, I write
separately because, in my view, the trial court should have granted Aaron Edward
Olson's repeated motions to sever the trials. Defendants are entitled to fair trials.
Motions to sever should be granted when the defendants will present such mutually
antagonistic defenses to the charges against them that there is a serious risk that the
jury "will unjustifiably infer that this conflict alone demonstrates that both are
guilty," rendering the trial unfair. State v. Hoffman, 116 Wn.2d 51, 74, 804 P.2d
577 (1991) (citing State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 508, 647 P.2d 6 (1982)). This is
one of those cases.
The defenses in this case were plainly, mutually antagonistic. Olson
contended that the police had arrested the wrong man for the crime and that he was
not in the parking lot that night and did not attack the victim. Anthony Marquise
Emery Jr. contended that both men were in the parking lot and that he, at least, had
consensual sexual relations with the victim. These two defenses are so antagonistic
to each other that the jury could easily have returned guilty verdicts, not because the
State proved its cases beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the two incredibly
different versions presented by the two men, reported to be friends, tainted the
credibility of both and invited the jury to infer guilt from that inconsistency alone.
I concur, however, because while the jury might have unreasonably found
State v. Emery (Anthony Marquise, Jr.)
State v. Olson (Aaron Edward), 86033-5
both men guilty based on their conflicting defenses alone, Emery and Olson bear the
burden of showing specific prejudice on appeal, and neither has met that burden.
See Grisby, 97 Wn.2d at 507 (citing State v. Kinsey, 20 Wn. App. 299, 579 P.2d
1347 (1978)). There was overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting the
jury's verdicts. Accordingly, I concur in result.
AUTHOR:
Justice Tom Chambers
WE CONCUR:
2
|