Wyo. R. Crim. P. 13 (2026)

Rule 13. Trial Together of Indictments, Informations or Citations.

The court may order two or more indictments, informations, citations or a combination thereof to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants, if there is more than one, could have been joined in a single indictment, information or citation. The procedure shall be the same as if the prosecution were under such single indictment, information or citation.

Compare. — Rule 13, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. confused by joinder of the charges. Simmers v. Prosecutorial discretion in charging of- State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 113 fenses. — When the defendant’s conduct vio- (Wyo. 1997). lates more than one criminal statute, it is the And consideration in guarding against prosecutor who decides how many offenses to prejudice. — In guarding against the preju- charge. Jerskey v. State, 546 P.2d 173, 1976 dice resulting from a joinder of similar offenses, Wyo. LEXIS 170 (Wyo. 1976). one of the prime considerations is whether or Discretion of court. — Trial together of two not evidence relating to the similar offenses charged would be admissible in the separate or more indictments is a matter for the court’s trial of each offense. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d discretion. Dycus v. State, 529 P.2d 979, 1974 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). Wyo. LEXIS 254 (Wyo. 1974). No prejudice where same information Joint trials of defendants charged with and same evidence. — There was no preju- committing same offense are the rule dice in trying two counts of burglary jointly rather than the exception. Joint trials serve the where the charges were joined in the same public interest by expediting the administra- information and the evidence would have been tion of justice, reducing docket congestion, con- the same had the charges been tried separately. serving judicial time as well as that of jurors Bishop v. State, 684 P.2d 799 (Wyo. 1984). along with avoiding the recall of witnesses to Consolidation proper where separate duplicate their performances. Jasch v. State, crimes constitute single transaction or re- 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. lated acts. — The fact that the defendants 1977); Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. were charged with and convicted of two sepa- LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). rate crimes did not foreclose consolidation in an The strongest case for ordering a joint instance in which the crimes essentially consti- trial is where the evidence to support the tuted a single transaction or involved a related charges against the several defendants is vir- series of acts. Seeley v. State, 715 P.2d 232, tually identical. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 503 (Wyo. 1986). 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977). Facts under which joinder proper. — See There is always possibility of prejudice Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS resulting from joinder of similar offenses 409 (Wyo. 1982). and care must be taken at the initial stage of The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the proceedings to guard against such a possi- ordering a joint trial of a husband and wife bility. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. charged in separate informations with partici- LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). pating in the same acts or series of acts consti- And fact establishing lack of prejudice. tuting aggravated robbery. Amin v. State, 695 — The fact that the evidence presented at a P.2d 1021, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 449 (Wyo. 1985). joint trial could be separately introduced at Joinder of murder and attempted murder trials for the separate offenses establishes the charges was proper, where evidence would have lack of prejudice. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, been admissible at a separate trial on each 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). offense; evidence of defendant’s attempted mur- Defendant was not prejudiced by joinder of der of police officers would have been admis- trials of three criminal actions against him for sible as circumstantial evidence to prove his child sexual abuse where testimony concerning involvement in murder earlier reported to offi- other victims would have been admissible in cers, and evidence of murder would have been separate trials under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) as admissible to prove motive in attempted mur- evidence to show motive or a common scheme der of officers. Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717, or plan and defendant failed to show jury was 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 103 (Wyo. 1999).

Rule 14 WYOMING COURT RULES 44