What is the test for a motion to consolidate two separate criminal cases?

Where a criminal defendant claims a trial court should have kept joined offenses separate, we review whether the court reasonably weighed "'the potential prejudice of joinder against the state's strong interest in the efficiency of a joint trial. [Citation.]' [Citation.] To succeed on a claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance or ordering consolidation, the defendant must make a '"clear showing of prejudice"' and establish that the ruling fell '"'"'outside the bounds of reason.'"'"'" (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 37-38.) Under well-established case law, whether a defendant has demonstrated a sufficiently "'clear showing of prejudice'" is determined by assessing the "particular circumstances" that were presented to the trial court at the time of its ruling, under four factors: "(1) whether the evidence relating to the various charges would be cross-admissible in separate trials, (2) whether any of the charges are unusually likely to inflame the jury against the defendant, (3) whether a weak case has been joined with a strong case or with another weak case, and (4) whether one of the charges is a capital offense or the joinder of the charges converts the matter into a capital case." (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 123 (Simon).)