In what circumstances will a judge grant a motion to sever evidence of a similar crime in a separate criminal trial?

Under all of these circumstances, we find that the probative value of the similar crimes evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. Additionally, as this issue is being analyzed in the context of determining whether or not the offenses should have been severed, rather than in the context of determining whether the evidence of uncharged acts was admissible in a trial on another matter, a consideration of the benefits of a joint trial must be considered in the evaluation. " ' "[The] judge's discretion in refusing severance is broader than his discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged offenses . . . ." [A] ruling on a motion to sever is based on a weighing of the probative value as against the prejudicial effect, but in the weighing process the beneficial results from joinder are added to the probative-value side. This requires the defendant to make an even stronger showing of prejudicial effect than would be required in determining whether to admit other-crimes evidence in a severed trial.' [Citations.]" (People v. Walker, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 623.) Whether or not there was a great duplication of witnesses as between the two events, all of the other benefits of a joint trial, detailed above, would weigh against severance in this matter.