Rule 14 Relief from Prejudicial Joinder

If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment, information or citation, or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. In ruling on a motion by a defendant for severance, the court may order the attorney for the state to deliver to the court for inspection in camera any statements or confessions made by the defendants which the state intends to introduce in evidence at the trial. Compare. — Rule 14, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Joinder generally permitted. — As a general rule, defendants can be indicted or informed against together unless there are compelling reasons for separate trials. Linn v. State, 505 P.2d 1270, 1973 Wyo. LEXIS 139 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 983, 93 S. Ct. 2277, 36 L. Ed. 2d 959, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2437 (U.S. 1973). Joint trials of persons charged together with committing the same offense or with being accessory to its commission are the rule, rather than the exception. There is a substantial public interest in this procedure. It expedites the administration of justice, reduces the congestion of trial dockets, conserves judicial time, lessens the burden upon citizens who must sacrifice both time and money to serve upon juries, and avoids the necessity of recalling witnesses who would otherwise be called upon to testify only once. Linn v. State, 505 P.2d 1270, 1973 Wyo. LEXIS 139 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 983, 93 S. Ct. 2277, 36 L. Ed. 2d 959, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 2437 (U.S. 1973). 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). 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). Prejudice weighed against judicial economy. — In determining whether or not to grant a severance, the trial court must weigh the prejudice caused by joinder against the economy and expedition in judicial administration provided by joinder. Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). 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). In order to determine whether a defendant is prejudiced by the joinder, the trial judge must ascertain whether all of the evidence admissible in a joint trial would be admissible in separate trials on each of the charges; if it would be, then there is no prejudice. Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 1280, 71 L. Ed. 2d 463, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 698 (U.S. 1982). Severance becomes necessary where the proof is such that a jury could not be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants. Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). And facts 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). A defendant is not entitled to severance merely because the evidence against a codefendant is more damaging than the evidence against him. Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). There must be compelling reasons for separate trials. — Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977). The grant or denial of severance is a matter of discretion with the trial court and will not be reversed except for clear abuse of such discretion. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971); Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 1280, 71 L. Ed. 2d 463, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 698 (U.S. 1982); Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). In determining whether a defendant is prejudiced by a joinder, deference is given to a trial judge’s rulings as to the admissibility of evidence; as long as there is some reasonable basis for his conclusions, the Supreme Court will not second-guess him on appeal. Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 1280, 71 L. Ed. 2d 463, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 698 (U.S. 1982). The language in this rule is permissive; thus, refusal to grant relief is discretionary and will be reviewed under the court’s traditional abuse-of-discretion standards. Black v. State, 869 P.2d 1137, 1994 Wyo. LEXIS 27 (Wyo. 1994). And only reversed if clearly abused. — Severance is a matter of discretion with the trial judge and its denial is not subject to reversal unless clear abuse is shown. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977). On a motion for severance the burden is on the movant to present facts demonstrating that prejudice will result from a joint trial, which in effect would be a denial of a fair trial. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971). Once the state on its motion makes a prima facie case warranting consolidation of the separate informations it is incumbent upon the defendant to come forward with facts and circumstances establishing wherein he will be prejudiced by a joint trial. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971); Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 1280, 71 L. Ed. 2d 463, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 698 (U.S. 1982). The burden is on the movant to present facts demonstrating that there is no reasonable basis for the trial judge to deny the motion. Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 357 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 1280, 71 L. Ed. 2d 463, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 698 (U.S. 1982). To find an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court must find that the joinder caused either actual or threatened deprivation of one’s right to a fair trial. A defendant bears a heavy burden of showing real prejudice to his case and must show more than that he would have had a better chance of acquittal with separate trials. Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 645 F. Supp. 374, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21918 (D. Wyo. 1986), aff’d in part, 866 F.2d 1185, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 613 (10th Cir. Wyo. 1989). Facts under which joinder proper. — See Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). Court properly joined two sexual assault offenses because the offenses were similar in character and so related as to constitute parts of a common scheme or plan. Defendant knew both victims, and in each instance, defendant entered the home of the victim under the cover of darkness, told the victim he was there to rape her, subdued her by force and demanded that she perform oral sex upon him. Lessard v. State, 2007 WY 89, 158 P.3d 698, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 96 (Wyo. 2007), overruled, Patterson v. State, 2025 WY 30, 565 P.3d 692, 2025 Wyo. LEXIS 31 (Wyo. 2025). Severance denied where evidence would have been same had charges been tried separately. — A motion for severance of two burglary counts was properly denied where the evidence would have been the same had the charges been tried separately and, therefore, there was no prejudice in trying them jointly. Bishop v. State, 687 P.2d 242, 1984 Wyo. LEXIS 310 (Wyo. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1219, 105 S. Ct. 1203, 84 L. Ed. 2d 345, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 998 (U.S. 1985). Denial of defendant’s motion to sever was not an abuse of discretion where the court had properly instructed the jury on the need to keep evidence on each count separate and where the defendant failed to make a showing of actual prejudice. Vargas v. State, 963 P.2d 984, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 105 (Wyo. 1998), reh’g denied, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 124 (Wyo. Aug. 26, 1998). Joinder of several offenses concealing stolen goods — burglary, murder, assault — was proper because of their inter-relation (i. e., concealed guns played a prominent part in the murder and assault, the concealment of a car and the burglary were connected with the flight from the scene of the crime), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to sever, the facts of the case being uncomplicated and the jury being specifically instructed that each charge had to be considered separately. Pote v. State, 695 P.2d 617, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 445 (Wyo. 1985). Court did not err in refusing to sever counts alleging delivery of drugs, where the evidence of separate offenses was not shown to be so complicated that the jury could not separate and evaluate them. Dorador v. State, 768 P.2d 1049, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 41 (Wyo. 1989). Separate trials were not necessary where the case was simple and uncomplicated and the jury could reasonably be expected to separate the charges and evaluate the evidence properly and individually on each separate charge. Bell v. State, 994 P.2d 947, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 4 (Wyo. 2000), reh’g denied, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 14 (Wyo. Feb. 8, 2000). Severance refused, despite evidence of codefendant’s prior bad acts, where defendant not involved. — There did not occur prejudicial error in refusing to grant the defendant a mistrial or a severance of his case for trial when the evidence of the prior bad acts on the part of his codefendant was offered at the trial. It was clear from the record that the jury could not have confused the two defendants or in any way concluded that the defendant had been involved in the prior bad acts. Seeley v. State, 715 P.2d 232, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 503 (Wyo. 1986). Ordinarily an acquittal on a misjoined count cures the misjoinder. — Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971).