 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walsh v. State2/9/2005
subjective belief was adequately before the jury in the form of his statement on his amended tax form that the income was not taxable. It also rejected the government's contention that Jordan could have proffered the testimony of his bankruptcy attorney as an effective substitute for his own testimony. The court concluded, therefore, that the joinder of the offenses likely had the effect of eviscerating Jordan's planned defense to the tax charges.
As discussed previously, appellant's contention here that no other witness could testify about his thought processes concerning why he was driving on the parking lot that night was simply not convincing. Neither does such testimony compare with that of an alibi defense in a death-penalty case or present other unique circumstances. In short, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to sever the two charges.
Affirmed.
Pittman, C.J., and Baker, J., agree.
|