Opinion ID: 1749548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it error for the trial court to deny appellant's motion for a severance of the trial of the two episodes?

Text: RCr 6.18 is as follows: Two (2) or more offenses may be charged in the same complaint or two (2) or more offenses whether felonies or misdemeanors, or both, may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate county for each offense, if the offenses are of the same or similar character or are based on the same acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. RCr 9.12 provides: The court may order two (2) or more indictments, informations, complaints or uniform citations to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants, if more than one (1), could have been joined in a single indictment, information, complaint or uniform citation. The procedure shall be the same as if the prosecution were under a single indictment, information, complaint or uniform citation. Moreover, RCr 9.16 requires separate trials if it appears that the defendant or the Commonwealth would be prejudiced by the joinder of the offenses. To begin with, it is clear that the trial court has broad discretion in determining this issue and that an appellate court will overturn a decision under a joinder only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion and prejudice to the defendant. Seay v. Commonwealth, Ky., 609 S.W.2d 128, 131 (1981). In the case before us, all charged offenses against the appellant occurred in one week's time. The offenses arising from the two events are similar, each including kidnapping, sodomy and rape. In the first episode, August 7, 1986, appellant used deception to get C.D. in his truck. On August 13, 1986, he used an identical deception to get D.C. and A.N. into his vehicle. In both instances, he picked the women up at a public eating and drinking establishment. Moreover, and it is not necessary to describe the details here, the sexual assaults allegedly performed by appellant were the same. Finally, the sexual assaults were committed following compulsion  a knife to the neck or a gun to the temple. It is clear that the crimes were very close in time, were instigated by the same deceptive techniques, involved threatened force and were similar in nature. Under these circumstances, we find no prejudice to the defendant, and no abuse of discretion by the trial court. We, therefore, affirm on this issue. This case is reversed with directions to the trial court that in the event of a retrial, under the same evidence, that the instruction on insanity will be given to the jury, as well as an instruction on unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. COMBS, LAMBERT, and LEIBSON, JJ., concur. VANCE, J., dissents in a separate dissenting opinion in which GANT, J., joins. WINTERSHEIMER, J., dissents in a separate dissenting opinion.