Vowell v. State

PARKS, Presiding Judge,

specially concurring:

The appellant contends that he was prejudiced by being tried with his codefendant, Hope, because their defenses were mutually antagonistic. The majority, relying on Wilhite v. State, 701 P.2d 774 (Okl.Cr.1985), states that the defenses were not truly antagonistic and did not require severance. Supra at 857. I must respectfully disagree.

In Wilhite, neither defendant blamed the other. While the two defendant’s statements and testimony were inconsistent, neither accused the other of committing the crime. Here, both defendant’s denied responsibility for…