State v. Wiles

I

In his second proposition of law, appellant argues in essence that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever Count Three of the indictment (i.e., the 1983 burglary charge) prior to trial. It is his essential contention that joinder of the 1983 burglary charge with the 1985 offenses was improper.

At the outset it must be observed that “[t]he law favors joining multiple offenses in a single trial under Crim. R. 8(A) if the offenses charged ‘are of the same or similar character.’ ” See State v. Lott (1990), 51 Ohio St. 3d 160, 163, 555 N.E. 2d 293, 298, quoting State v. Torres (1981),…