State v. Williams, 358 P.3d 299

Defendant indicted on 11 sex-related offenses against four victims; appeal concerns three convictions (second-degree sexual abuse, third-degree sexual abuse, first-degree rape).
Two relevant victims, K and J, alleged separate incidents months apart in different locations.
Defendant moved to sever charges under ORS 132.560, arguing lack of mutual admissibility and substantial prejudice from joinder.
State argued evidence regarding one victim would be relevant to the other; defendant conceded same class of victim and that statutory criteria appeared met.
Trial court denied severance; defendant did not request a limiting instruction at the hearing.
Court of Appeals reviewed denial for legal error and abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying motion to sever joinder of offenses	Joinder lawful; evidence of other acts relevant	Joinder caused substantial prejudice because evidence regarding K and J was not cross-admissible	Denial affirmed — lack of cross-admissibility alone does not show substantial prejudice; incidents were simple and distinct
Whether lack of mutual admissibility required severance	N/A (state disputed defendant's claim)	Mutual inadmissibility meant jury might conflate offenses	Rejected — admissibility and prejudice are separate inquiries; mutual inadmissibility insufficient by itself
Whether trial court had duty to sua sponte give limiting instructions	N/A	Trial court’s failure to mitigate prejudicial joinder by instruction was reversible error	Rejected — defendant never requested limiting instruction and court not required to issue one sua sponte
Standard of review for severance decision	N/A	N/A	Legal determination of showing "substantial prejudice" reviewed for legal error; ultimate severance decision reviewed for abuse of discretion

State v. Gensler, 266 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (discusses when mutual inadmissibility does not require severance because incidents are sufficiently distinct)
State v. Miller, 327 Or. 622 (Or. 1998) (prejudice inquiry under severance statute distinct from admissibility; trial court discretion)
State v. Luers, 211 Or. App. 34 (Or. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for showing substantial prejudice)
State v. Tidwell, 259 Or. App. 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (joinder permitted where incidents were discrete and evidence uncomplicated)
State v. Dimmick, 248 Or. App. 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (multiple separate incidents with different victims supported denial of severance)