State v. Keith, 431 P.3d 94

Defendant faced 11 charges arising from three separate dates: Nov 22, 2014; Jan 18, 2015; and Jan 19, 2015. Jury convicted on Counts 6 (robbery 3rd), 8 (interference with making a report), 9 (theft 3rd), and 10 (possession of methamphetamine).
Nov 22 incident: domestic altercation; victim injured; arrest warrant issued after defendant declined to meet officer.
Jan 18 incident: defendant returned to victim's apartment, allegedly wrestled her phone away; victim later told police defendant forced entry and may have been on meth.
Jan 19 incident: police summoned to a storage facility; defendant came and was arrested on outstanding warrant; an officer discovered a meth pipe on him during arrest.
Defendant moved to demur and sever joinder of Count 10 (possession) from the domestic-violence-related counts; trial court denied the motion, reasoning overlap of drug-evidence and domestic-violence testimony.
On appeal the court evaluated whether joinder under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C) (offenses based on acts/transactions "connected together" or part of a "common scheme or plan") was proper and whether any improper joinder was harmless.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether possession (Count 10) was properly joined with domestic-violence counts under ORS 132.560(1)(b)(C)	Offenses were "connected together" because investigation linked events and drug use would be an issue at trial	Possession was temporally and factually separate; no common scheme or overlapping proof with the domestic-violence charges	Joinder improper — possession not sufficiently connected to the other offenses
Whether joinder was harmless error	Even if joined improperly, admission of overlapping evidence was harmless and did not affect verdicts	Improper joinder likely admitted evidence that would not be admissible in separate trials, causing prejudice	Not harmless — cannot conclude evidence would have been admissible in separate trials; convictions reversed for joined counts

State v. Johnson, 199 Or. App. 305 (2005) (interprets "connected together" and "common scheme" language in ORS 132.560 and rejects overly broad relevance-based joinder)
United States v. Anderson, 642 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1981) (joined counts appropriate where crimes are logically related with substantial overlapping proof)
State v. Strouse, 276 Or. App. 392 (2016) (examines temporal/spatial concurrence and whether earlier offenses precipitate later ones to justify joinder)
State v. Clardy, 286 Or. App. 745 (2017) (error in joinder is harmless only if evidence admitted for improperly joined counts would have been admissible in separate trial)
State v. Poston, 277 Or. App. 137 (2016) (similar standard for assessing prejudice from improper joinder)