On appeal, this court must determine whether any substantial prejudice to defendants may have resulted from their being joined for trial. Appellant argues the district court erred when it granted the state's motion for a joint trial, and as a result he suffered substantial prejudice. To support his argument, appellant cites cases decided under the 1975 version of Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.03, subd. Under this rule, the supreme court held that ordinarily, defendants jointly charged with a felony shall be tried separately, but that the court, in the interests of justice and not solely related to economy of time or expense, may order joinder.
State policy favors strongly separate trials.
In making its determination on whether to order joinder or separate trials, the court shall consider the nature of the offense charged, the impact on the victim, the potential prejudice to the defendant, and the interests of justice. In cases other than felonies, defendants jointly charged may be tried jointly or separately, in the discretion of the court. In all cases any one or more of said defendants may be convicted or acquitted. Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.03, subd.