State v. Brown, 531 P.3d 178

Background

Two separate incidents led to two indictments against Randall Todd Brown: a September 1, 2018 car crash (injuries; police found stolen vehicle, two firearms, stolen ID, and meth residue) and a December 21, 2018 traffic stop (police found a stolen vehicle, 18 grams of meth, and a centrifugal-force knife).
September indictment charged nine counts (including DUII, reckless driving, two counts assault, criminal mischief, UUV, identity theft, possession of meth, felon-in-possession of firearm).
December indictment charged four counts (including delivery and possession of meth, UUV, felon-in-possession of a restricted weapon).
The State moved to consolidate; the trial court granted consolidation the same day. Brown moved to sever (three motions); the motions were denied and a consolidated jury convicted on all counts.
On appeal Brown challenged joinder/consolidation among other claims; the court focused on whether consolidation/joinder of the two indictments complied with ORS 132.560 and reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Brown's Argument	Held
Whether consolidation of the two indictments satisfied ORS 132.560(1)(b) (same or similar character / common scheme)	Offenses in both indictments (UUV, possession of meth, felon-in-possession) are same/similar and the incidents form parts of a common scheme (buying/selling contraband); text messages and similar modus operandi support joinder	Many September counts (DUII, reckless driving, assault, criminal mischief) are unrelated to December contraband offenses and no statutory basis was alleged to join those crash-related counts with the December indictment	Reversed: consolidation was improper because some charges (crash-related counts) were not joinable with the December charges; joinder must be supported for all charged offenses, not just some
Whether individual indictments properly joined the multiple counts within each charging instrument	State: counts within each indictment were temporally and evidentially linked and reflected a single incident	Brown: argued joinder within indictments was improper	Held: Joinder within each indictment was proper (same or similar character and common scheme within each incident)
Whether misjoinder was harmless error	State: does not establish harmlessness	Brown: misjoinder prejudiced him because non-cross-admissible evidence (large quantity of meth vs. crash evidence) influenced verdicts	Held: Misjoinder was not harmless—there is more than a little likelihood the improperly joined evidence affected the jury; reversal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Warren, 364 Or 105 (2018) (indictment joinder requires alleging statutory basis and joinder can be prejudicial)
State v. Dewhitt, 276 Or App 373 (2016) (consolidation requires showing charges meet any independently sufficient bases for joinder and looks for overlapping proof)
State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671 (2019) (factors for assessing "same or similar character" include temporal proximity, element similarity, evidentiary overlap, victims, location, and modus operandi)
State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137 (2016) (state cannot join distinct groups of counts in one indictment without alleging a basis for joining those groups)
State v. Taylor, 364 Or 364 (2019) (offenses connected as a common scheme where crimes were part of a planned sequence with overlapping proof)
State v. Delaney, 370 Or 554 (2022) (severance requires a case-specific showing of substantial prejudice beyond inherent prejudice from joinder)