Opinion ID: 2333744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Severance of the HIV Charge

Text: White moved before trial to sever the charge of exposing another to HIV from the other charges because exposing another to HIV is the modern day scarlet letter, an allegation and disease so inflammatory that the charge had to be severed. The motion was summarily denied. Pursuant to Ark. R.Crim. P. 22.2(a), where two (2) or more offenses have been joined for trial solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character and they are not part of a single scheme or plan, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses. We will affirm a trial court's denial of a motion to sever if the offenses at issue were part of a single scheme or plan or if the same body of evidence would be offered to prove each offense. Garner v. State, 355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003). K.J. was exposed to HIV while White was committing sexual assault in the fourth degree. The act was part of a single scheme, and the same evidence was offered to prove both crimes. On that basis, the motion was properly denied. However, White alleges that fairness required severance. Ark. R.Crim. P. 22.2(b)(i) does allow for severance where before trial it is deemed appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offence.... Because the crime of exposing another to HIV occurred in the course of the crime of fourth-degree sexual assault, under Rule 22.2(b)(i), the decision to sever offenses was discretionary with the trial court. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to sever.