State v. Ross

Under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) we consider factors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims. State v. Gialloreto, 301 Or. App. 585, 591, 457 P.3d 1105 (2019).

Defendant appeals the judgment in his case where multiple charges were consolidated. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever, arguing that the consolidation was improper because the cases did not involve a large amount of overlapping evidence, and that he would suffer substantial prejudice from the consolidation. The State responded that the indictments were logically related, the evidence of the two cases largely overlapped, and the defendant would not suffer substantial prejudice because the evidence was admissible in both of the trials. Under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A) we consider factors such as the temporal proximity of the acts, similarities in the elements of the offenses, whether there will be similar evidence or evidentiary overlap, and whether the charges involve the same or similar victims. State v. Gialloreto, 301 Or. App. 585, 591, 457 P.3d 1105 (2019). Applying those factors here, each of the cases involved the same victim, and the cases had large evidentiary overlap between them. Additionally, the evidence about his homicide case would have been admissible to prove motive in his solicitation case, therefore the defendant would not have suffered substantial prejudice from the jury. Affirmed.