Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A) 162015CF6602NO(XMA
B) 162013CF7314NOO(MA
DIVISION: CR-H
STATE of FLORIDA
v.
COMES NOW the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, and respectfully requests this
Honorable Court grant the State's Motion for ConsolidatiorVJoinder ofRelated Offenses/Defendants.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendants herein are both charged with a series of actions resulting in the neglect of the
same minor
child and with subsequent behavior undertaken in an effort to conceal said neglect.
The evidence and witnesses are the same in each case, as are the underlying acts giving rise
to the charges. Joinder is appropriate since the same evidence would establish the fact and nature
of the relationship between Defendants, and other witnesses, in both cases. Defendants are charged,
in both cases, with acts perpetrated on the same dates, at the same locations, against the same victim,
and in firrtherance of their cofitmon goal(s).
Standard of Review
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.150(bX2) and (3) and 3.151(a) and (b) permitjoinder
of both defendants and cases where the defendants are "charged with conspiracy and some of the
defendants are also charged
ofthe conspiracy; or eyettifconspiracy is not charged and all defendants are not charged in
each
count, it is alleged that the several offenses charged were part of a common scheme or plan. . . [t]wo
or more indictments or informations charging related offenses shallbe consolidated for trial on a
timely motion[.] Two or more offenses are related offenses if they are triable in the same court and
are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or
transactions." (Emphasis
supplied).
Joinder and severance of Defendants and charges is generally a matter resting within the
Court's discretion. Smithers v. State, 826 So.2d 916 (Fla. 2002). One method of establishing
for joinder is via a "causal
basis
State, 608 So.2d 994 (Fla.1992) (defendant induced a codefendant to murder a man while defendant
videotaped the crime, then used the videotape to blackmail the same codefendant into soliciting a
second murder a month later)" Where "there is clearly a meaningful relationship between the two
crimes and they are without question linked in some significant wa.!," Smithers, supra,
matters may be tried
jointly, even,
as
at923,the
ll29
The concept is perhaps best exemplified by the type ofjoinder demonstrated in the cases
of
Lugo v. State,845 So.2d 74 (F\a.2003) and Mese v. state,824 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Lugo and Mese were actually codefendants (with a third individual, Doorbal) who were tried
together on multiple charges including RlCO/conspiracy and homicides. Essentially they were
alleged to have been part of an ongoing conspiracy to kidnap and torture wealthy individuals and
kill
the
torlure/killers (as was Doorbal), Mese was the accountant who handled financial arrahgements. Both
courts held that the defendants and their charges were properly tried together. Commentary from the
Supreme Court of Florida's opinion
is particularly instructive:
The careful planning that surrounded each of these incidents, along with the manner
of execution, obviates the conclusion that they were entirely random, disconnected
events. . this type of activity over a six-month period does not have the
ofacquittal or
severance, nor is
a strategic advantage
iftried
right to a fair determination of his innocence: "there is always some prejudice in any trial where
more than one offense or offender are tried together- but such garden variety prejudice, in and
of
itself, will not suffice." Nor will the passage of even a substantial amount of time, Brunner, supro,
or the occasion when both defendants raise alibi defenses, Johnson v. State 720 5o.2d,232 (Fla.
,
1998), mandate severance. Here, neither defendant has of record any defense which would
require
severance.
AccordinglY, the State submits that joinder of Defendants, for trial on both sets of charges,
should be granted.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certifr that a copy hereof has been fumished to
A. Perkins, Esq., Office of the Public Defender
K. Carlisle, Esq., Office of Regional Conflict Counsel,
Attorneys for Defendants,
by e-service this 29 day of September, ZOl5.
Respectfully submitted,
--*':"--->( , .l)--;
<i r-i ri\-UV (t",Li;
Richard W. Mantbi
Assistant State Attorney
Bar #119296