Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever because (1) the trial court incorrectly concluded that the cases satisfied the requirements for consolidation set out in ORS 132.560(1) (b) and (2) the trial court incorrectly concluded that severance was not warranted because defendant would not suffer substantial prejudice from the consolidation.See State v. Brown, 326 Or.App. 46, 49, 531 P.3d 178, rev den, 371 Or. 332 (2023) (explaining that a defendant may challenge the consolidation of cases by moving to sever, arguing that the requirements for consolidation are not met and/or that the defendant is substantially prejudiced by consolidation).
State v. Brown, Randall Todd (A171078/79) (326 Or.App. 46) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
The trial court consolidated the indictments after concluding that the charges were of the "same or similar character," ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A), and that joinder would not substantially prejudice defendant, ORS 132.560(3). See State v. Brown, 326 Or.App. 46, 52, 531 P.3d 178, rev den, 371 Or. 332 (2023) (factors relevant to whether charges were of the "same or similar character," ORS 132.560(1)(b)(A), include "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, locations, intent, modus operandi, or acts" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Defendant contends that that ruling was erroneous, while the state defends it.