When will a court order a joint trial for unlawful gun and ammunition possession and for an unlawful shooting?

-- two weak cases at least in terms of attempts to shoot or kill anyone." Contrary to this argument, the evidence supporting both cases (one a shooting case and the other a possession case) was strong. As to the April shooting, L. unequivocally identified defendant as the shooter. And the fact that defendant shot L. in the head at close range was strong circumstantial evidence of an intent to kill with premeditation. (People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 349.) The evidence supporting the May unlawful gun and ammunition possession was just as strong. A neighbor who knew defendant saw him fire a gun and then called 911. Police then saw defendant throw from his van what turned out to be a .22-caliber pistol with three lives rounds and two spent casings. Police found more of the same ammunition in his van. Because the evidence of both sets of crimes was so strong, there was no potential prejudice.

At the same time, a single trial on all charges was judicially efficient, which is the rationale for favoring joint trials. (People v. Soper (2009) 45 Cal.4th 759, 771-772.) Given there were no factors weighing in favor of severance and the strong incentive, both evidentiary and fiscally, to try the cases together, the court acted well within its discretion in trying the cases together.