Court Opinion

ID: 9707232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:06:04.739475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:29.461917
License: Public Domain

*440DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring - with opinion.
Appellant raises the issue of severance of the murder and drug charges, claiming that the trial court improperly refused to separate the offenses. Indiana law allows the joinder of distinct offenses, where the offenses "are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan." Ind.Code § 85-34-1-9. A trial court has the discretion to grant a separate trial for joined offenses that are not of the same or similar character whenever the court determines that severance is appropriate. A defendant must move for severance of crimes before the commencement of trial IC. § 35-34-1-12(2). When determining the appropriateness of a severance motion, a trial court weighs factors such as the number of offenses charged, the complexity of the evidence to be offered,; and whether the trier of fact will be able to distinguish the evidence and apply the law intelligently as to each offense. LC. § 85-34-1-11(a).
Indiana law requires that a defendant reassert a motion for severance to preserve any error for appeal. I.C. § 35-34-1~12(b) reads:
If a defendant's pretrial motion for severance of offenses or motion for a separate trial is overruled, the motion may be renewed on the same grounds before or at the close of all the evidence during trial. The right to severance of offenses or separate trial is waived by failure to renew the motion.
(Emphasis added). In order to preserve the issue for appeal, a criminal defendant whose pre-trial motion for severance was denied must renew the motion before or at the close of the evidence at trial. In the present case, the record does not reflect that appellant renewed his motion for severance. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for his appeal.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.