Rule 13 Trial Together of Indictments, Informations or Citations

The court may order two or more indictments, informations, citations or a combination thereof to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants, if there is more than one, could have been joined in a single indictment, information or citation. The procedure shall be the same as if the prosecution were under such single indictment, information or citation. Compare. — Rule 13, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Prosecutorial discretion in charging offenses. — When the defendant’s conduct violates more than one criminal statute, it is the prosecutor who decides how many offenses to charge. Jerskey v. State, 546 P.2d 173, 1976 Wyo. LEXIS 170 (Wyo. 1976). Discretion of court. — Trial together of two or more indictments is a matter for the court’s discretion. Dycus v. State, 529 P.2d 979, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 254 (Wyo. 1974). Joint trials of defendants charged with committing same offense are the rule rather than the exception. Joint trials serve the public interest by expediting the administration of justice, reducing docket congestion, conserving judicial time as well as that of jurors along with avoiding the recall of witnesses to duplicate their performances. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977); Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). The strongest case for ordering a joint trial is where the evidence to support the charges against the several defendants is virtually identical. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977). There is always possibility of prejudice resulting from joinder of similar offenses and care must be taken at the initial stage of the proceedings to guard against such a possibility. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). And fact establishing lack of prejudice. — The fact that the evidence presented at a joint trial could be separately introduced at trials for the separate offenses establishes the lack of prejudice. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). Defendant was not prejudiced by joinder of trials of three criminal actions against him for child sexual abuse where testimony concerning other victims would have been admissible in separate trials under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence to show motive or a common scheme or plan and defendant failed to show jury was confused by joinder of the charges. Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 113 (Wyo. 1997). And consideration in guarding against prejudice. — In guarding against the prejudice resulting from a joinder of similar offenses, one of the prime considerations is whether or not evidence relating to the similar offenses charged would be admissible in the separate trial of each offense. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). No prejudice where same information and same evidence. — There was no prejudice in trying two counts of burglary jointly where the charges were joined in the same information and the evidence would have been the same had the charges been tried separately. Bishop v. State, 684 P.2d 799 (Wyo. 1984). Consolidation proper where separate crimes constitute single transaction or related acts. — The fact that the defendants were charged with and convicted of two separate crimes did not foreclose consolidation in an instance in which the crimes essentially constituted a single transaction or involved a related series of acts. Seeley v. State, 715 P.2d 232, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 503 (Wyo. 1986). Facts under which joinder proper. — See Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a joint trial of a husband and wife charged in separate informations with participating in the same acts or series of acts constituting aggravated robbery. Amin v. State, 695 P.2d 1021, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 449 (Wyo. 1985). Joinder of murder and attempted murder charges was proper, where evidence would have been admissible at a separate trial on each offense; evidence of defendant’s attempted murder of police officers would have been admissible as circumstantial evidence to prove his involvement in murder earlier reported to officers, and evidence of murder would have been admissible to prove motive in attempted murder of officers. Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 103 (Wyo. 1999).