used to support a find that the acts were of the same character, transaction, or scheme, the
charges didn't warrant joinder. Id. Here, both charges are for drugs, but they contain the same
word like the robbery in Saylers, even though the charges concern drugs. Also, there are affidavits
to support the charges, unlike in Saylers.
If proof of the defendant's commission of one of the illegal acts would not otherwise have been
admissible in the trial for the other offense, the defendant will be prejudiced, and severance
should be granted. State v. Ritter, Franklin Court of Appeal (2005). The court may exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice
or misleading the jury. FRCP Rule 403. In Ritter, the court found that the evidence of each heroin
sale would have been permissible in a trial involving the other transaction because they go to
show a common scheme or plan to sell heroin in the same neighborhood due to Ritter selling the
heroin in the same area, from the same vehicle, in the same period of time. Also, the court found
that carrying a weapon is highly correlated with the intent to sell drugs, similar to possession of
baggies or scales, therefore, gun possession is relevant to intent and the probative value is not
substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, especially when there is a limiting instruction.Here,
Sylvia has been charged with two drug charges. The first charge stems from the alleged sale of
10 grams of cocaine. While at her brother’s apartment she answered the door, her brother gave
a man cocaine and the man handed the money to Sylvia, which he immediately gave to her
brother, and Sylvia then left. The second drug charged stems from a DUI arrest while Sylvia was
driving her boyfriend's car, where after being arrested, the arresting officer found marijuana, a
small scale, and empty baggies in the backseat. During that arrest, the officer found a handgun
in the trunk. Because she was a felon, she was charged with being a felon in possession of firearm,
but the DUI charge was let go. Sylvia's case is different from Ritter because the drug charges here
are from two different substances, marijuana and cocaine, while in Ritter the drug charges both
stemmed from marijuana. Also here, she was pulled over driving under the influence, while the
other charged occurred. In Ritter, the evidence would have been admissible in each trial because
they could use the evidence to show common plan, but here there is no common scheme or plan.
The drugs are different types, she is being alleged to have one while on the road and one in a
house, and there's evidence to show that the drugs belong to different people, her brother and
her boyfriend. The evidence of the marijuana wouldn't be admissible at the trial for the cocaine
and vice versa. Also, like in Saylers, the court can consider the time between offenses. Here, the
assault conviction was from six years ago, even longer than the two years in Saylers. Therefore,
if the trials are all together, Sylvia will be unfairly prejudiced.
III. Sylvia wouldn't testify in the trials for the separate drug charges because her prior assault
conviction could be used to impeach so severance should be granted because forcing Sylvia to
testify in one single trial unfairly prejudices her by allowing the prosecution to impeach her when
she otherwise wouldn't be susceptible to this impeachment in separate trials.
Prejudice may result if the defendant wishes to testify in his own defense on one charge but not
the other. Ritter. Additionally, severance of counts is warranted when a defendant has made a
convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a
strong need to refrain from testifying on the other. In State v. Pierce, Franklin Court of Appeal