Opinion ID: 2639226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Severance on fairness grounds

Text: ¶ 16 In the alternative, Prince argues that a severance on fairness grounds pursuant to Rule 13.4(a) [4] should have been granted after the state's opening statement, when the prosecutor said: Now, Mr. Prince and Christy were married February of 1997. They met back in the previous May. It was not good even before they got married. There was domestic violence where Christy was hit and struck. She still married him. It wasn't long after that he was still .... (Emphasis added.) At this point, defense counsel requested a sidebar conference. Because all evidence concerning domestic abuse prior to November 1997 had been ruled inadmissible, the judge suggested that the prosecutor tell the jury that he made an error regarding the dates. The lawyer resumed his statement as follows: Let me go back. I was mistaken about the dates. They were married in February of 1997 and starting in November of that year, November of 1997, there were threats by the defendant to kill Christy.... During this period, from November and I misspoke, as I say. I misspoke before. From November until the previousto the next March of 1998, there was this history of abuse .... ¶ 17 Joinder is permitted where separate crimes arise out of a series of connected acts, provable by much of the same evidence. See, e.g., State v. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 446, 702 P.2d 670, 675 (1985). The offenses here arose out of a single domestic dispute. The same weapon was used and the crimes occurred within seconds of each other. The primary evidence concerning both offenses came from the testimony of Christine and the appellant. In State v. Atwood, 171 Ariz. 576, 613, 832 P.2d 593, 630 (1992), we held that a defendant is not prejudiced by a denial of severance where the jury is instructed to consider each offense separately and advised that each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was so instructed here. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever.