Opinion ID: 1827084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the denial of the motion to sever the murder charge from the aggravated assault charge was error.

Text: Arguello moved to sever the counts and separate the trials. In support of his motion, he argued that the charges were different in character, involving different victims and different factual scenarios. Additionally, he claimed severance was necessary because, while he might want to testify regarding the knifing of High Crane, he might not want to testify concerning the knifing of Poor Thunder. The court denied his motion to sever finding that the probative value of holding a joint trial outweighed any prejudicial effect. [T]he decision not to sever is firmly within the discretion of the trial court and absent a clear showing of prejudice to substantial rights of the defendant, there is no abuse of that discretion. State v. Dixon, 419 N.W.2d 699, 702 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted). SDCL 23A-6-23 provides: Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts for each offense, if the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. (Emphasis added.) Contrary to Arguello's claim that the charges involved different factual scenarios and were two distinct acts or transactions under [SDCL] 23A-6-23, we find the two offenses are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together[.] Id. This satisfies the statutory test for joinder. Any joinder of offenses is apt to involve some element of prejudice to the defendant, since a jury is likely to feel that a defendant charged with several crimes must be a bad individual who has done something wrong. However, if the notion of involuntary joinder is to retain any validity, a higher degree of prejudice, or certainty of prejudice, must be shown before relief will be in order. Dixon, 419 N.W.2d at 703 (citation omitted). Arguello's claim that he might want to testify concerning the murder charge but not the aggravated assault charge and that failure to sever prevented this is insufficient to establish the required higher degree of prejudice, or certainty of prejudice[.] Id. Additionally, the jury was instructed by the court to consider each count separately. Arguello has failed to show an abuse of discretion in denying his motion to sever.