State v. Delaney

“A defendant cannot establish substantial prejudice [under ORS 132.560(3)] ‘if the evidence pertaining to the separate charges is “mutually admissible in separate trials or is sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder[.]”’” State v. Tidwell, 259 Or App 152, 155, 313 P3d 345 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 142 (2014).

Defendant was found guilty on multiple counts of sexual assault which involved two victims. On appeal, Defendant contended that the trial court erred when they denied his motion for separate trials on the charges related to each victim. Defendant argued that, if the cases were tried together, he would be prejudiced by “cross-pollination” of the evidence. The State argued that the cases were “simple and distinct” and therefore distinguishable by a jury. “A defendant cannot establish substantial prejudice [under ORS 132.560(3)] ‘if the evidence pertaining to the separate charges is “mutually admissible in separate trials or is sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder[.]”’” State v. Tidwell, 259 Or App 152, 155, 313 P3d 345 (2013), rev den, 355 Or 142 (2014). The Court held that the evidence which pertained to the separate charges was sufficiently simple and distinct to mitigate the dangers created by joinder. Particularly, the victims’ testimony made absolutely clear that their cases were unrelated, and the State never alleged that the two victims were somehow linked together. Affirmed.