United States v. Hawkins - 776 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2009)

Rule:

The requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) are not infinitely elastic, and so cannot be stretched to cover offenses which are discrete and dissimilar. Joinder of unrelated charges creates the possibility that a defendant will be convicted based on considerations other than the facts of the charged offense. An important element of a fair trial is that a jury consider only relevant and competent evidence bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Facts:

Defendant Collin Hawkins was indicted on separate counts related to a carjacking and a subsequent arrest as a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, defendant timely moved the court to sever the carjacking counts from the felon in possession charge on the grounds of improper joinder. In the alternative, defendant argued severance was appropriate under Rule 14 because he would be significantly prejudiced by a single trial. The district court denied the motion and Hawkins was found guilty by a jury on all counts. Defendant challenged the decision, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever the carjacking counts from the felon in possession charge.

Issue:

Did the district court err in denying defendant’s motion to sever the carjacking counts from the felon in possession charge?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the defendant's carjacking counts should have been severed from the felon in possession count under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) as their only connection was defendant. According to the Court, the charges were not of a same or similar character, and the misjoinder affected defendant's substantial rights because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict as not all of the evidence on the felon in possession count and on the carjacking counts would have been mutually admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) had their been separate trials. The Court held that the probative value of the evidence would have been substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant under Fed. R. Evid. 403.