Opinion ID: 1423838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The trial court could bifurcate the proceedings

Text: The state contends the judgment is not final because the trial court did not determine Parkus' mental competency to be executed, but only determined that Parkus was mentally retarded. Rule 66.02 grants the trial court broad authority to order separate trials. At the court's discretion, separate trials may be ordered for reasons of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or for reasons of judicial economy. Any decision to grant a separate trial will not be disturbed unless this discretion is abused. Judicial discretion will be found to be abused only when the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice. In this case, in light of the different issues being considered by the trial court, there was no abuse of discretion in separating the trials. State ex rel. Sago By and Through Sago v. O'Brien, 827 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Mo.App.1992).