Opinion ID: 2289158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Severance Motions

Text: Appellant's contention that the court erred in not granting his motion for relief from prejudicial joinder of counts is not well founded. [1] The decision to sever counts is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge under Superior Court Criminal Rule 14, and this court will reverse only where the record manifests a clear abuse of discretion. The rationale underlying the granting of a motion to sever pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 14 [2] is well settled in this jurisdiction. The counts should be severed if it is shown that the jury may cumulate evidence of the separate crimes, or that the jury may improperly infer a criminal disposition and treat the inference as evidence of guilt, or where the defendant may become embarrassed or confounded in presenting different defenses to different charges. Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 14, 331 F.2d 85, 88 (1964). However, where, as in the instant case, evidence of each joined offense would be admissible in a separate trial for the other, the first two dangers are largely absent. Blunt v. United States, 131 U.S. App.D.C. 306, 311, 404 F.2d 1283, 1288 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct. 1021, 21 L.Ed.2d 221 (1969); Baker v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 23, 401 F.2d 958, 974 (1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 965, 91 S.Ct. 367, 27 L.Ed.2d 384 (1970). The Government does not contend that all the details of proof would be mutually admissible in separate trials  only that significant portions would properly be received. We agree. If there had been separate trials on each of the counts, there would have been a substantial overlap of evidence and, as we stated in Williams v. United States, D.C.App., 263 A.2d 659, 662 (1970), the court must weigh prejudice to the defendant caused by the joinder against the obviously important considerations of economy and expedition in judicial administration. [Citations omitted.] Here, all circumstances considered, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion. [3]