Failure to do so precludes the State from later retrying the defendant for crimes not charged in the original indictment. Id.; see also Ronnie Dale Gentry, 2006 WL 891211, at *5 (concluding that Rule 8(a) does not require offenses to be joined where there is no evidence that "the appropriate prosecuting official knew of all of the charges or that all of the offenses were within the jurisdiction of a single court"); State v. David Lee Kestner, No. M2004-02478-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359698, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 10, 2006) (concluding that the two indictments represented two independently motivated criminal episodes and were not subject to the mandatory joinder rule), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. June 26, 2006). Regarding the policy considerations behind Rule 8(a), the Advisory Commission Comments state:
See Model Penal Code ยง 1.07(2), 10A U.L.A. 36 (2001); Unif. Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 471(a) (1987), 10 U.L.A. 148 (2001).State v. Baird, 88 S.W.3d at 621; see also State v. Gentry, No. E2005-01133-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 891211, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. Apr. 4, 2006) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed); State v. Kestner, No. M2004-02478-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359698, at *5 (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb. 10, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 26, 2006).
Failure to do so precludes the State from later retrying a defendant for crimes not charged in the original indictment. Id.; see also Ronnie Dale Gentry, 2006 WL 891211, at *5 (concluding that Rule 8(a) does not require offenses to be joined where there is no evidence that "the appropriate prosecuting official knew of all of the charges or that all of the offenses were within the jurisdiction of a single court"); State v. David Lee Kestner, No. M2004-02478-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359698, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 10, 2006) (concluding that the two indictments represented two independently motivated criminal episodes and were not subject to the mandatory joinder rule), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. June 26, 2006). Regarding the policy considerations behind Rule 8(a), the Advisory Commission Comments state:
"Additionally, we note that the policy behind Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) is to prevent multiple trials, and here, [appellants] did not choose to go to trial on [the first] indictment; therefore this policy has not been compromised in any way." State v. David Lee Kestner, No. M2004-02478-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359698, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2006). CONCLUSION