STATE v. NEWMAN (2026)

Writ granted. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to sever. Defendant failed to make the requisite pre-trial showing that justice requires a severance. See State v. Taylor, 09-0041, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/4/09), 21 So.3d 421, 426-27; State v. Williams, 416 So.2d 914, 916 (La. 1982) (even where co-defendants point the finger at each other, defendant must demonstrate that a “joint trial would be prejudicial to his interests”). “Co-defendants seeking severance must present convincing evidence to the trial judge of actual antagonism.” State v. Jenkins, 340 So.2d 157, 166 (La. 1976) (citing State v. Thibodeaux, 315 So.2d 769, 771 (La. 1975)); State v. Bradford, 367 So.2d 745, 747 (La. 1978) (observing motion to sever properly denied based on vague allegations of defense counsel that he would cast blame on his client's co-defendants in his argument to the jury and “each [co-defendant] was primarily concerned with exculpating himself, not blaming the other”). The ruling of the trial court is therefore reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this per curiam.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would deny. Guidry, J., dissents and would deny.