Opinion ID: 2332719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Severance of Theft Charge

Text: The trial court did not err in refusing to sever the charge of theft by unlawful taking over $300. In denying Appellant's motion, the trial court noted that such evidence tends to establish identity, motive, and part of a plan for criminal action. The passage of time between the offenses charged does not determine or compel severance. The character of the offenses of May 19 and June 25 are interwoven one with the other.... RCr 6.18 provides that two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment if they are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. The two incidents were intertwined in that Appellant first became a suspect in the June 25th crimes after Gail Williamson told police that some jewelry had been stolen on May 19th when Appellant was at the Williamson residence cleaning carpets. Furthermore, evidence of the earlier theft showed that Appellant did not randomly pick Williamson when he committed the June 25th crimes, rather he had gained knowledge about the Williamson residence and its contents through his employment with Kiwi Carpet Cleaning. A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for severance and reversal is not warranted absent an abuse of that discretion. Davis v. Commonwealth Ky., 899 S.W.2d 487 (1995). Certainly, the evidence of the May 19th theft was prejudicial to Appellant. However, the evidence was also relevant, probative and within the requirements of RCr 6.18. No error occurred.