Cited by

we consider only the evidence before the court when it ruled on the motion.” –45, ¶ 60 (2016); (“In considering whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever, we are mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made the requisite showing of prejudice.”).

and render a fair and impartial verdict.’” ().

In considering whether the superior court erred, “we are mindful that the [superior] court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made the requisite showing of prejudice.”

(severance warranted where prosecutor invited jurors to hold defendant responsible for “reprehensible actions of [codefendant], coupled with highly charged testimony about [codefendant’s] actions from [a victim],” that were irrelevant to the charges against defendant).

we are mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made the requisite showing of prejudice.” (emphasis added).

Moreover, nothing in the record shows the joint trial rendered the jury unable to “‘keep separate the evidence that is relevant to each defendant and render a fair and impartial verdict’ as to each.” () (noting mere introduction of evidence concerning only one defendant is generally insufficient to establish prejudicial rub-off).

“[M]ere introduction of evidence concerning one defendant’s conduct that does not involve the other defendant generally does not constitute sufficient grounds for severance.”

see also, ¶ 43 (App. 2012) (no abuse of discretion when State presented events of conspiracy committed by co-defendants that did not involve the defendant); see generally Ariz. R. Crim.

See State v. (Melinda) VanWinkle, (“In considering whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to sever, we are mindful that the trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether, in light of the evidence then before the court, the defendant has made the requisite showing of prejudice.” (emphasis

“[I]n the interest of judicial economy, joint trials are the rule rather than the exception.”

only a couple minutes before the [police] takedown,” and “he had no involvement in the conspiracy at the time most of the statements by Tucker, Diaz, and Cuttler were made.” ¶42 “Rub-off” occurs when “‘the jury’s unfavorable impression of the defendant against whom the evidence is properly admitted influence[s] the way the jurors view the other defendant.’” (alteration in Van Winkle).

Id.; , (stating that “rub-off” from unfavorable impression of one defendant to another “warrants severance only when the defendant seeking severance establishes a compelling danger of prejudice against which the trial court can not protect”).

f right, the denial of severance is reversible error only if the evidence of other crimes would not have been admitted at trial “for an evidentiary purpose anyway.” -97 , -89 (1993) (quoting Morris K. Udall, et al., Arizona Practice: Law of Evidence § 84, at 184 n. 14 (3d ed. 1991) [hereinafter “Arizona Evidence”]); , (Defendant is not entitled to a trial separate from his co-defendant on a “rub-off’ theory if the same evidence would be admissible in defendant’s separate trial.).