California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Forman, B266113 (Cal. App. 2016):
Where the statutory requirements for joinder are satisfied, the defendant bears the burden of establishing a clear showing of potential prejudice. (People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at
Page 7
p. 409.) This is determined by four factors: (1) whether evidence on the crimes jointly tried would have been cross-admissible; (2) whether certain charges were unusually likely to inflame the jury against the defendant; (3) whether the prosecution has joined a weak case with a strong case (or another weak case) so that the "spillover" effect from the aggregate evidence on the combined charges might alter the outcome of one of the cases; and (4) whether any of the charges carries the death penalty. (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1244.)
Here, the evidence was cross-admissible. One of the firearms recovered from the apartment could have fired the fatal shot. Moreover, the marijuana possession was an indication of an association with a gang, which in turn provided a possible motive for murder. If evidence is cross-admissible, prejudice is dispelled. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 667.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.