There was no compelling valid reason why the State should insist, over defendant’s objection, that the two charges, involving offenses allegedly committed some two months apart, be tried at one time. No appreciable saving of time resulted from the joinder of the two distinct offenses for trial rather than offering the proofs specifically applicable to each offense at separate trials, each of which would be of short duration.
The failure to sever the two sets of charges in this case resulted in the jury hearing evidence that our courts historically have recognized “has a unique tendency to turn a jury against the defendant.” Where the trial court errs by improperly joining offenses, the reviewing court must assess whether the error “led to an unjust result. The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether it led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached.” This requires “an independent analysis of the quality of the evidence of defendant’s guilt on a conviction-by-conviction basis.” Id. at 102.
Consistent with the Court’s analysis, prosecutors often oppose severance motions as a means to increase their chances of getting a conviction. The flip side is that if the defendant is acquitted after a severance is ordered, the prosecution gets a second chance at convicting the defendant with regard to the subsequent severed case.