Opinion ID: 2151235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was consolidation unduly prejudicial?

Text: Originally both the defendant and Miss Anderson were charged and these charges were consolidated for trial. The defendant and Miss Anderson pleaded not guilty and waived a jury trial. Just before the trial began, however, Miss Anderson changed her plea from not guilty to guilty. She then testified to the facts described above. The defendant argues that he should have had a separate trial because the testimony of his codefendant was so prejudicial. This argument is without merit, first, because the defendant made no motion for severance before or at any time during the trial. Secondly, there was no other trial from which the defendant's trial could be severed. Once Miss Anderson pleaded guilty, she was no longer on trial, and the defendant was being tried alone. Thirdly, the general purpose of the rule allowing severance is to prevent the jury from becoming confused as to what evidence is applicable to which defendant. When the case is tried to the court alone, without a jury, the danger of undue confusion is not present. [1] There may be cases where severance is appropriate, even though the judge alone is the trier of fact, but this is certainly not one.