Opinion ID: 1755271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Consolidation Argument.

Text: Hajtic complains that the court should not have consolidated his trial on the burglary and robbery charges. Under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(1), [t]wo or more indictable public offenses which arise from the same transaction or occurrence or from two or more transactions or occurrences constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, when alleged and prosecuted contemporaneously, shall be alleged and prosecuted as separate counts in a single complaint, information or indictment, unless, for good cause shown, the trial court in its discretion determines otherwise. Where a public offense carries with it certain lesser included offenses, the latter should not be charged, and it is sufficient to charge that the accused committed the major offense. Our review of a district court's consolidation order is for abuse of discretion. See State v. Thornton, 506 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 1993). To show the district court abused its discretion in consolidating, a defendant must prove that his interest in severance was greater than the State's interest in judicial economy. State v. Lam, 391 N.W.2d 245, 251 (Iowa 1986). A common scheme or plan under rule 2.6(1) requires that all offenses charged be products of a single or continuing motive. Lam, 391 N.W.2d at 250. In determining whether the offenses are products of a single or continuing motive, we have found it helpful to consider factors such as intent, modus operandi, and the temporal and geographic proximity of the crimes. State v. Oetken, 613 N.W.2d 679, 688 (Iowa 2000). In Lam, we held there was sufficient evidence that the offenses charged were parts of a common scheme or plan to burglarize apartments. We found it was relevant that the burglaries took place on the same day, in the same general location, and using the same method of transportation. In Oetken there was sufficient evidence of a common scheme or plan with a single continuing motive when the burglaries were committed on two consecutive days, using similar methods. In this case, the crimes took place within a twenty-four hour period. The objectives were similarto obtain money and/or cigarettes. The same method of transportation was used, and the businesses targeted were in the same general location. Hajtic's defense was the same in all the caseshe was acting under intimidation by Eric Miller, his accomplice. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the trials.