Under the law, joinder of offenses is either proper or improper, but severance is a matter of discretion for the trial court. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Mo.App. 1987). Offenses should be liberally joined to encourage judicial economy, and the trial court's decision should be based solely on the state's evidence.
Appellant's claim presents us with two distinct points for review. First, the court must examine whether the offenses were properly joined in the indictment. If joinder is found to have been proper, then this court must inquire whether the trial court abused its discretion in not severing the offenses and trying them together in a single prosecution. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Mo.App. 1986). Joinder is either proper or improper under the law while severance is within the trial court's discretion.
In determining whether joinder is proper, we consider only the state's evidence. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 581[5] (Mo.App. 1987). For joinder to be proper, the manner in which the crimes were committed should be so similar that it is likely that the same person committed all the charged offenses. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d at 581[2].
In Smith, discussed more fully infra, a conviction of two counts of first degree robbery, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of second degree murder, arising from three separate incidents, was affirmed. The similarities between the offenses in the instant case were also equal to, if not greater than, those in State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579 (Mo.App. 1987). There an intruder forced his way into an apartment at gunpoint, robbed six persons, and raped, sodomized and sexually abused a woman.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for severance, the trial court must weigh the benefits of trying the offenses simultaneously and thereby saving judicial time against the potential prejudice to the defendant. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 582-583 (Mo.App. 1987). The denial of the defendant's motion will only be disturbed by a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.
Similar tactics or facts are sufficient to constitute acts of the "same or similar character" permitting joinder. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Mo.App. 1987). In the present case all three counts charged defendant with first degree robbery.
Tactics which resemble or correspond in nature are sufficient to support joinder." State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Mo.App. 1987). The "similar tactics" of the perpetrators of the offenses charged in the information are apparent from the facts stated above.
Only one of these criteria is necessary to support proper joinder. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Mo.App. 1987). Further, offenses should be liberally joined to encourage judicial economy, and the trial court's decision whether to join the offenses should be based only on the state's evidence.
Joinder is either proper or improper as a matter of law. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987); State v. Shubert, 747 S.W.2d 165, 168 (Mo.App.W.D. 1988). As a result, the decision of the trial court is not entitled to deference.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for severance, the trial court must weigh the benefits of trying the offenses simultaneously and thereby saving judicial time against the potential prejudice to the defendant. State v. Clark, 729 S.W.2d 579, 582-583 (Mo.App. 1987). The denial of the defendant's motion will only be disturbed by a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.