State v. Hernandez-Esteban

It is not within the permissible bounds of discretion for a trial court to do nothing when case specific substantial prejudice has been established

The defendant here was charged in a single indictment with twelve counts of child sexual abuse against two minor victims. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to sever the charges arguing that the joinder of the charges prejudiced his interests in a fair trial due to the substantial difference in severity and length in the abuse allegations. The trial court denied his motion and he was convicted on all counts for one victim and one court for the other. On appeal, the defendant reiterated his trial court argument that because the charges involving the first victim were significantly stronger in evidence quality and the sexual nature of the conduct than the charges relating to the second victim, there was a risk that the jury would “fill in the evidentiary gaps” from the second case with the first. The Oregon Supreme Court reasoned that even though the victims’ charges were legally joinable, the underlying facts made them substantially different in their severity which created a risk that the jury could be misled by the evidence, therefore creating a risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, the Oregon Supreme Court found that it was not within the bounds of discretion for the trial court to provide no relief and reversed on those grounds. Additionally, they affirmed the court’s final judgment relating to the convictions related to the first victim.