State v. Strouse

A trial court may properly join a defendant’s marijuana-related and firearm-related charges where the charges are "connected together or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan" as described in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C).

On appeal, Defendant challenged the joinder of marijuana-related charges and firearm-related charges as improper and prejudicial. The State maintained that all charges had overlapping facts and were part of the same picture. The Court held that the charges were “connected together or constituted parts of a common scheme or plan” (ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C)) and Defendant failed to explain why limiting instructions were insufficient to mitigate any prejudices; therefore, the trial court did not err in permitting their joinder. Defendant also argued on appeal that the trial court committed plain error in failing to acquit him of initiating a false report. The State conceded this point, as there was no evidence on the record that the Defendant “initiated” the fictitious report at issue. The Court held that it was proper to use its discretion to review this unpreserved issue on appeal because the record had been fully developed. Conviction on this count reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.