Opinion ID: 2216009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting state's motion for joinder of indictments?

Text: Busack contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting State's motion for joinder of the August 1993 indictment (concerning methamphetamine possession and distribution) and the November 1993 indictment (involving two counts of cocaine possession). An abuse of discretion arises only where the party requesting severance of joined counts can make `a clear showing of prejudice to substantial rights.' State v. Shape, 517 N.W.2d 650, 654 (S.D. 1994) (quoting State v. Dixon, 419 N.W.2d 699, 702 (S.D.1988)). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing joinder of the offenses. SDCL 23A-6-23 provides in relevant part: 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 .... (Emphasis supplied.) The charges against Busack obviously satisfy this same or similar character requirement, as both indictments involved illegal possession of controlled substances. Furthermore, we do not find prejudicial joinder so as to justify severance of the offenses under SDCL 23A-11-2. Under both indictments, Busack allegedly ingested illegal drugs while sitting with others in vehicles parked at the D & N One-Stop. Where separately charged offenses are closely related in location and manner of execution, joinder may be appropriate. See State v. Closs, 366 N.W.2d 138, 140 (S.D.1985). Additionally, the trial court appropriately instructed the jury to separately consider each offense and the evidence applicable thereto. Busack's attorney stressed the importance of this instruction in his closing argument. Based on the verdict acquitting Busack of cocaine charges and convicting him of methamphetamine charges, it is obvious that the jury successfully differentiated between the various counts and the evidence pertaining to these charges. Under these facts, joinder was not improper and no prejudice resulted.