What is the test for denying severance in a murder case?

For all these reasons Washington's argument against the cross-admissibility of the crimes fails. Because evidence of the murders was cross-admissible, any likelihood of prejudice was dispelled. (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 126.) For that reason alone, no abuse of discretion would have occurred in denying severance. (Id. at p. 128.)

However, even if the evidence was not cross-admissible, Washington has failed to show prejudice. "In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion, we examine the record before the trial court at the time of its ruling. [Citation.]"² (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 161.) In addition to the cross-admissibility of the evidence, which we discuss ante, the court may also consider three other factors: "whether one of the charges is a capital offense, or the joinder of the charges converts the matter into a capital case. . . ." (Ibid.) Another factor is "whether some of the charges are likely to unusually inflame the jury against the defendant" (ibid.) and, finally, "whether a weak case has been joined with a strong case or another weak case so that the total evidence may alter the outcome of some or all of the charges . . . ." (Ibid.) Washington failed to make such a showing.

Page 36