Find Legal Information

Opinion Information Sheet

			

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