Opinion ID: 1060830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: consolidation of presentments

Text: The appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting the state's pre-trial motion to consolidate the presentments in this case pursuant to Tenn. R.Crim. P. 8(b). Specifically, the appellants assert that the evidence does not support a finding of a common scheme or plan and, furthermore, that the evidence of all of the cases on trial would not have been admissible upon the trial of all the others. Under Tenn. R.Crim. P. 13(a), a court may order consolidation of two or more indictments, presentments, or informations for trial if the offenses and all appellants could have been joined in a single indictment, presentment, or information pursuant to Rule 8. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 8(b) provides: Two or more offenses may be joined in the same indictment, presentment, or information, with each offense stated in a separate count, or consolidated pursuant to Rule 13 if the offenses constitute parts of a common scheme or plan or if they are of the same or similar character. Based on the facts and on argument of counsel, the trial court granted the state's motion to consolidate the presentments in this case. Subsequently, several motions to sever were filed by the appellants and denied by the trial court. The decision to consolidate separate indictments is a procedural matter which is within the discretion of the trial court. McCook v. State, 555 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tenn.Crim.App.1977). Having consolidated the offenses pursuant to Rule 8(b), the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a severance should be granted is Rule 14(b)(1). The appellants have a right to severance unless the offenses are part of a common scheme or plan and the evidence of one would be admissible upon the trial of the others. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 14(b)(1). Both portions of the rule must be satisfied to avoid severance: there must be a common scheme or plan and the evidence of one offense must be admissible at the trial of the others. In determining whether or not to grant a severance, the trial court must look at the facts and circumstances involved in the various crimes that are charged. State v. Morris, 788 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990). The decision to grant a severance is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Furlough, 797 S.W.2d 631, 642 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990), and will not be disturbed unless the defendant is unfairly or unduly prejudiced. See Woodruff v. State, 164 Tenn. (11 Smith) 530, 539, 51 S.W.2d 843, 845 (1932); State v. Wiseman, 643 S.W.2d 354, 362 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982). It is the responsibility of the defendant to show that he was clearly prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to sever the offenses. See State v. Hodgkinson, 778 S.W.2d 54, 61 (Tenn.Crim.App.1989). Common scheme or plan encompasses groups or sequences of crimes committed in order to achieve a common ultimate goal or purpose as well as crimes which occur within a single criminal action. State v. Hallock, 875 S.W.2d 285, 290 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). In the present case, the various crimes and the sequence of their occurrence were part of a greater plan to leave the country and to avoid capture by the Kentucky authorities; thus, establishing the first prong under Rule 14(b). All of the crimes for which the appellants were charged occurred in the Leatherwood community of Stewart County within less than a week. Key pieces of evidence found at the murder scene and in the Vesters' stolen car linked the appellants to the burglaries and thefts from the Cherry, Foster, and Vester residences; and evidence of the burglaries and thefts from the Foster, Cherry, and Vester residences aided in establishing the appellants' opportunity, motive, and intent to kill the Vesters. Further, evidence of the uncharged crimes at the McMinn, Harris, and Crawford residences helped to establish the appellants' common scheme to escape from the Kentucky authorities. See State v. Wooden, 658 S.W.2d 553, 558 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). Moreover, we find that the second prong has been met. In making this determination, we have looked to the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; specifically, Rule 404(b). See State v. Hallock, 875 S.W.2d at 290-92. The admission of evidence of other crimes which tends to show a common scheme or plan is proper to show identity, guilty knowledge, intent, motive, to rebut a defense of mistake or accident, or to establish some other relevant issue. Id. at 292. There is no doubt that in this case, the proof of each offense was inextricably connected with the evidence of the other offenses. In such cases, the Supreme Court has held that the denial of a motion to sever the offenses is not error. See State v. Shepherd, 902 S.W.2d 895, 903-904 (Tenn.1995). This issue is without merit.