State v. Crummett, 361 P.3d 644

Defendant was charged in a single indictment with 42 sexual offenses against six different girls under 14 over a five-year period; convicted of 12 offenses after a stipulated-facts trial to the court.
Defendant moved to sever the charges into six separate cases (one per victim).
Trial court denied severance, finding defendant failed to show "substantial prejudice" under ORS 132.560(3) and failed to show fundamental unfairness under the Due Process Clause.
Defendant's severance motion relied primarily on conclusory assertions and the indictment allegations; he did not present concrete evidence or an offer of proof about how trial evidence would unfold.
Defendant did not renew or supplement the motion after discovery was completed.
This appeal challenges the denial of severance; the court reviews the trial court's statutory-severance determination for legal error based on the record at the time of the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 132.560(3) required severance	Joinder was proper; state argued defendant failed to show substantial prejudice	Joinder of six victim-based charges is presumptively prejudicial and required severance	Denied — defendant failed to show substantial prejudice; mere number of victims insufficient
Whether joinder caused due process/fundamental unfairness	State: no showing that misjoinder deprived defendant of a fair trial	Joinder of multiple victim charges created risk of unfair trial and prejudice	Denied — defendant showed only speculative unfairness; record does not show actual deprivation of a fair trial
Whether evidence across victims would be mutually admissible or risk jury confusion	State: without concrete proffer, court cannot assume lack of cross-admissibility or confusion	Defendant: evidence not mutually admissible and too complex, increasing risk of confusion and prejudice	Denied — defendant provided no factual proffer showing likely inadmissibility or confusion
Whether trial court's limiting instructions (or lack thereof) failed to mitigate prejudice	State: limiting instructions can mitigate and court indicated willingness to give them	Defendant: trial court failed to commit to or give limiting instructions, increasing prejudice	Denied/immaterial — defendant's failure to show prejudice made instruction issue immaterial; court indicated it would give limiting instructions if needed

State v. Beauvais, 261 Or. App. 837 (2014) (burden on party seeking severance to show substantial prejudice)
State v. Barone, 329 Or. 210 (1999) (must make specific showing how joinder causes prejudice)
State v. Tidwell, 259 Or. App. 152 (2013) (generalized claims of prejudice insufficient without case-specific facts)
State v. Miller, 327 Or. 622 (1998) (declines presumption that joinder of multiple unrelated sexual/violent offenses is prejudicial)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or. 248 (1999) (standard of review for severance rulings)
State v. Luers, 211 Or. App. 34 (2007) (review scope and deference in severance contexts)
United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (due process challenge requires showing misjoinder deprived defendant of fair trial)