Rule 8 Joinder of Offenses and Defendants

(a) Joinder of offenses. — Two or more offenses may be charged in the same citation, indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character, are based on the same act or transaction, or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.

(b) Joinder of defendants. — Two or more defendants may be charged in the same citation, indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together, or separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. Compare. — Rule 8, 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). Joinder of indictments is matter for court’s discretion. — Joinder of two or more indictments, pending against defendant for same criminal act, is a matter for court’s discretion. Dycus v. State, 529 P.2d 979, 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 254 (Wyo. 1974). Joinder found proper. — In a prosecution for delivery of crack cocaine, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to sever, where defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that he was subjected to significant prejudice by his joint trial. Hernandez v. State, 2001 WY 70, 28 P.3d 17, 2001 Wyo. LEXIS 85 (Wyo. 2001). 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). Similar offenses may be joined. — Where the offenses charged were of the same or similar character, such as narcotic transactions closely related in time, place and manner of execution, they properly could have been joined in one indictment in separate counts. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971). But care should be taken to avoid prejudice from joinder. — There is always a possibility of prejudice resulting from a joinder of similar offenses and care must be taken at the initial stage of the proceedings to guard against such a possibility. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971); Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). Considerations in guarding against such prejudice. — In guarding against 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. Dobbins v. State, 483 P.2d 255, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 210 (Wyo. 1971); 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). Facts under which joinder proper. — See Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). Joinder of several offenses — concealing stolen goods, burglary, murder, assault — was proper because of their interrelation (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). Defendant’s plan, scheme, or course of conduct. — Where defendant was engaged in a sexual relationship with the victim and helped the victim run away from home and then obstructed her safe return, defendant’s plan, scheme, or course of conduct was obviously to continue his relationship with the victim, and the fact that the separate charges spanned a few days was of no concern. Bell v. State, 994 P.2d 947, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 4 (Wyo. 2000), reh’g denied, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 14 (Wyo. Feb. 8, 2000). Joinder of three criminal actions to show common scheme or plan. — 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). Joinder found proper. — 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). Misjoinder as error of law. — Misjoinder of an embezzlement related offense, and the offense of submitting a false voucher for a battery, occurred as an error of law. Howard v. State, 762 P.2d 28, 1988 Wyo. LEXIS 117 (Wyo. 1988), reh’g denied, 1988 Wyo. LEXIS 158 (Wyo. Nov. 7, 1988). 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). Joinder permitted unless separate trials compelled. — 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). Concern whether defendant prejudiced from joint trial. — A concern is whether or not the defendant is prejudiced as a result of a joint trial. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). Information sufficient to apprise defendants. — Where the record clearly demonstrates that appellants were jointly charged in the same information of committing grand larceny, where the allegations in the information were sufficient to reasonably apprise them of the theory that they were being charged with having participated in a series of acts constituting an offense and that they aided and abetted one another in the accomplishment and success of the venture, where the information alleged that the coins found in “their” car were later counted and totaled $196.30, where appellants neither sought relief from prejudicial joinder nor filed a request to be furnished with a bill of particulars setting forth the precise theory under which the state would prosecute the charge against them, appellants were sufficiently apprised to permit a defense on all aspects of the crime charged, including that of aiding and abetting. Neilson v. State, 599 P.2d 1326, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 447 (Wyo. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079, 100 S. Ct. 1031, 62 L. Ed. 2d 763, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 755 (U.S. 1980). Joint trials are expeditious. — 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); Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). Waiver. — By failing to object to prejudicial joinder of charges before trial, defendant waived any objection to the joinder and did not properly preserve issue for appeal. Cox v. State, 964 P.2d 1235, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 127 (Wyo. 1998).