Cluster 2623707

In State v. Wittwer, 214 Or App 459, 461, 463-64 , 166 P3d 564 (2007), charges related to two domestic-violence incidents against the same victim on May 10 and May 25 and a charge for the defendant’s failure to appear in court on May 14 were properly joined, because the May 14 and May 25 incidents both stemmed from defen- dant’s plan to avoid responsibility for the May 10 incident, such that the charges were all logically related and involved substantial overlapping proof.

State v. Wittwer, 214 Or App 459, 463-64, 166 P3d 564 (2007) (joinder of multiple charges that were committed and investigated at different times and places was proper because the later occurring offenses were clearly precipitated by an earlier offense, rendering evidence of the initial offense “necessary to prove * * * and to explain the context and motivation for the [later occurring] events”).

See United States v. Gabay, 923 F.2d 1536, 1539-40 (llith Cir1991); Umited States v. Ritch, 588 F.2d 1179, 1181 (Ist Cir1978) (both construing Federal Criminal Rule 8(a), which is substantially similar to Alaska Criminal Rule 8(a)); Brown v. United States, 718 A.2d 95, 102 (D.C.App.1998); State v. Weathers, 889 N.C. 441 , 451 $.E.2d 266, 269 (1994); State v. Wittwer, 214 Or.App. 459 , 166 P.3d 564, 566 (2007) (all construing state joinder rules identical or substantially sim…

See State v. Wittwer, 214 Or App 459, 463-64 , 166 P3d 564 (2007) (concluding that the charges were part of a com- mon scheme or plan where one set of charges resulted from the defendant’s effort to “escape blame” for other charges and where “[p]roof of the charges related to [the first event was] necessary to prove the [subsequent charges] and to explain the context and motivation for the [subsequent charges]”).