P.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to order a mistrial when Smith offered a defense that conflicted with his own. We disagree. Although appellant and Smith took different paths in defending against the charges, the defenses were not mutually exclusive. The jury‟s acceptance of Smith‟s approach would not foreclose the possibility the jury could also have believed appellant‟s theory. Prior to trial, appellant brought a motion to sever based on concerns the prosecution planned to introduce statements by Smith and Christopher that implicated him. The prosecutor indicated he did not plan to use the statements, and the court denied the motion as “largely moot.” Appellant does not challenge that ruling on appeal. At the close of the prosecution‟s case, appellant made a motion for a mistrial based on the court‟s failure to sever his case from those of Christopher and Smith. Appellant challenges the ruling denying that motion. “The Legislature has expressed a preference for joint trials.” (People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1297 (Casari).) “When two or more defendants are jointly charged with any public offense, whether felony or misdemeanor, they must…