This is аn appeal from a conviction, after a jury trial, of fifteen counts of an indictment which оriginally numbered twenty-seven. The principal contention pressed on this appeal is founded upon the joinder for trial of this large number of counts. For the reasons appearing hereinafter, we do not think reversal is required.
As returned by the grand jury, the indictment contained five felony counts for false pretenses; and twenty-two misdemeanor counts, of which thirteen were for unlawful prаctice of the healing arts, five for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs, and four for unlawful delivery оf dangerous drugs. 1 Prior to trial appellant moved to sever the counts for trial or to require an election between them. His claim essentially was that the submission of proof by the prosecution in the same trial of such a large number of different offenses, involving at least seven complaining witnesses, would tend to mislead the jury and cause it to convict because of the sheer number of the *933 offenses charged rather than by reference to the merits of each. Howevеr, appellant recognizes, as he must, that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure exprеssly contemplate the joinder of separate offenses under certain circumstances. Rule 8(a), set forth fully in the margin, 2 says that this may be done when the offenses “are of the same or similar character,” or when they are comprised of acts “connected together оr constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”
The offense against the community for which appellant has essentially been held to account was that of falsely holding himself out tо the public as a licensed physician, and of performing acts in the course of that deception which a layman is forbidden to do. Since his operations continued over a significаnt period of time, it is hardly surprising that a large number of separate statutory violations were аsserted to have occurred, or that these fall into a similar and recurring pattern. We havе no difficulty whatever in concluding that the offenses in question fall within both standards for join-der set forth in Rule 8(a); and that there was no error in rejecting appellant’s efforts, either in advance of trial or at its commencement, to seek a severance or an election. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 14.
It is, of course, true that pre-trial dis-allowance of severance does not foreclose the issue for all purposes. Trials involving large numbers of separate offenses are not the favorites of the law, and they carry the built-in hazards that confusion or abuse may develop in such degree during the course of trial as to necessitate subsequent severance оr election, or the declaration of a mistrial, in order to avoid undue prejudice. Seе Drew v. United States,
We have examined the other points urged upon us by appellant, and we find in them no warrant fоr reversal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is
Affirmed.
Notes
. At the start of the trial, leave was granted to the Government to dismiss six misdemeanor counts because of the unavailability of witnesses for reasons of health.
. Joinder of Offenses. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged, whеther felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character or аre based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transaсtions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.