State v. Hartman, 735 S.E.2d 898

Hartman was convicted in one trial of burglary against his father, battery of an elder person against his father, and domestic assault against his stepmother, with sentences running as described.
The domestic assault charge against the stepmother arose from the same factual transaction but was filed later by information, not indictment.
Hartman had violated a protective order prohibiting contact with Ann Getty; his stepmother testified to attempts to contact Getty and threats made by Hartman.
The State sought consolidation of the later misdemeanor information with the existing indictment, arguing single prosecution for offenses arising from the same act/transaction.
Hartman argued consolidation amended the indictment and violated Rule 8(a) and case law requiring charging all offenses in one document; the circuit court allowed consolidation.
The Court held the State did not amend the indictment and consolidation was proper because the misdemeanor arose from facts not known when the indictment was filed, and Rule 7(a)/8(a) permit information on a previously charged defendant when new facts emerge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consolidation violated indictment rules	Hartman: consolidation amends the indictment unlawfully.	Hartman: consolidation not permitted; offenses must be in one document.	Consolidation proper; no substantial amendment.
Whether information joining a new misdemeanor is permitted after indictment when facts were not known initially	Hartman: facts known at filing should have been included; information improper.	Hartman: Rule 7(a) allows information for misdemeanors; facts emerged post-indictment.	Information allowed; new facts justified information filing.
Whether Rule 8(a) mandatory joinder requires same document for all offenses	Watson/Canady require same charging document for all offenses arising from same transaction.	Rule 8(a) allows unitary trial with multiple charges; not required to be in same document.	Unitary trial required; not necessarily a single charging document.

State ex rel. Watson v. Ferguson, 166 W.Va. 337 (1980) (same-transaction offenses may be charged separately in one or more proceedings)
State ex rel. Forbes v. Canady, 197 W.Va. 37 (1996) (mandatory joinder; unitary trial for offenses arising from same transaction)
State v. Adams, 193 W.Va. 277 (1995) (indictment may be amended if not substantial and defendant not prejudiced)
State ex rel. Blaney v. Reed, 215 W.Va. 220 (2004) (Rule 8(a)(2) unitary prosecution for offenses known or should have been known)
State v. Haines, 221 W.Va. 235 (2007) (substantial amendments to indictments; resubmission to grand jury when necessary)