State v. Keith

In cases where the crimes were “‘committed and investigated at different times and places [, the court examines whether] the later occurring offenses were clearly precipitated by an earlier offense, [thus] rendering evidence of the initial offense ‘necessary to prove and to explain the context and motivation for the [later occurring] events.’” State v. Strouse, 276 ORS App 392, 402.

Defendant appealed his conviction of ORS 164.395, robbery in the third degree (Count 6) ; ORS 615.572, interfering with making a report (Count 8); ORS 164.043, theft in the third degree (Count 9); ORS 475.894, possession of methamphetamine (Count 10). Defendant assigned error to the court’s denial of his motion to sever. On appeal, Defendant argued that the Count 10 should not have been joined with Count 6, 8, and 9, as the joinder of Count 10 does not meet the requirements described in ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C).  In response, the State argued that joined as proper because the crimes arouse out of transactions that were connected together. In cases where the crimes were “‘committed and investigated at different times and places [, the court examines whether] the later occurring offenses were clearly precipitated by an earlier offense, [thus] rendering evidence of the initial offense ‘necessary to prove and to explain the context and motivation for the [later occurring] events.’” State v. Strouse, 276 ORS App 392, 402. The Appellate Court held that the methamphetamine charge was insufficiently connected to the other charges to justify joinder, as there was not any temporal or spatial concurrence of the offenses. The defendant's presence at the storage facility and possession of methamphetamine was not a perpetuation of criminal activity related to previous incidents with the victim, and the record did not show an area of overlapping proof between Count 10 and the other counts. Reversed on Counts 6, 8, 9, and 10.