III.4. Preliminary Proceedings: Joinder, Consolidation, and Severance

Go Back to Rules Index

Two or more offenses that are triable in the same court may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense, when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors, or both, are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or transactions.

Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information on which they are to be tried when:

(1) each defendant is charged with accountability for each offense charged;

(2) each defendant is charged with conspiracy and some of the defendants are also charged with 1 or more offenses alleged to have been committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; or

(3) even if conspiracy is not charged and all defendants are not charged in each count, it is alleged that the several offenses charged were part of a common scheme or plan. Such defendants may be charged in 1 or more counts together or separately, and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count.

When 2 or more defendants have been jointly charged under rule 3.150(b) or have been joined for trial and are represented by the same attorney or by attorneys who are associated in the practice of law, the court shall, as soon as practicable, inquire into such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of the right to effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. The court shall take such measures as are necessary to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.

1968 Adoption. (Notes are to rule 1.140(d)(4) and (5).) (4) Joinder of Offenses. The essence of this proposal is presently found in section 906.25, Florida Statutes, federal rule 8(a), and section 111-4(a) of the 1963 Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. (5) Joinder of Defendants. This proposal is taken from federal rule 8(b). Its substance also appears in section 111-4(b) of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure. While section 906.25, Florida Statutes, does not expressly contain this provision, there is little doubt that its broad language includes it.

1972 Amendment. Provisions of former rule 3.150 are transferred to and incorporated in rule 3.130, Pretrial Release. (a) Substantially the same as former rule 3.140(d)(4) except that it omits proviso that the court have jurisdiction to try all offenses charged. The proviso seems redundant. (b) Substantially the same as ABA Standard 1.2 of ABA Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance but omits subparagraph (c)(2) which would permit joinder of charges “so closely connected in respect to time, place, and occasion that it would be difficult to separate proof of one charge from proof of the others.” The ABA commentary on this standard concedes that in such cases the chances are considerable that defendants would have a right to severance. Difficulty of separating proof is a good reason for denying a right to join charges. The committee is of the opinion that defendants not connected in the commission of an act and not connected by conspiracy or by common scheme or plan should not, under any circumstances, be joined. The suggested rule omits the provision of former rule 3.140(d)(4) permitting joinder of 2 or more defendants in a single indictment or information, if they are alleged to have participated in the same series of acts or transactions constituting more than 1 offense. If all defendants participated in a series of connected acts or transactions constituting 2 or more offenses, the offenses can be joined under rule 3.150(a). The last sentence of the suggested rule is the last sentence of former rule 3.140(d)(5).

2004 Amendment. This rule is intended to provide a uniform procedure for judges to follow when codefendants are represented by the same attorney, by the same law firm, or by attorneys who are associated in the practice of law. This provision is substantially derived from Rule 44, Fed. R. Crim. P. See also Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1996).

2004 Amendment. Like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(c), new subdivision (c) does not specify the particular measures that the court must take to protect a defendant’s right to counsel. Because the measures that will best protect a defendant’s right to counsel can vary from case to case, this determination is left within the court’s discretion. One possible course of action is to advise the defendant of the possible conflict of interest that could arise from dual representation and to obtain a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of the right to obtain separate representation. See Larzelere v. State, 676 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1996). Another option is to require separate representation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 44(c) advisory committee notes 1979 amendment.

For purposes of these rules, 2 or more offenses are related offenses if they are triable in the same court and are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or transactions.

Two or more indictments or informations charging related offenses shall be consolidated for trial on a timely motion by a defendant or by the state. The procedure thereafter shall be the same as if the prosecution were under a single indictment or information. Failure to timely move for consolidation constitutes a waiver of the right to consolidation.

When a defendant has been tried on a charge of 1 of 2 or more related offenses, the charge of every other related offense shall be dismissed on the defendant’s motion unless a motion by the defendant for consolidation of the charges has been previously denied, or unless the defendant has waived the right to consolidation, or unless the prosecution has been unable, by due diligence, to obtain sufficient evidence to warrant charging the other offense or offenses.

A defendant may plead guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of 1 offense on the condition that other charges of related offenses be dismissed or that no charges of other related offenses be instituted. Should the court find that the condition cannot be fulfilled, the plea shall be considered withdrawn.

1968 Adoption. This rule is almost the same as federal rule 13, with provisions added for trial by affidavit.

1972 Amendment. (a) To same general effect as ABA Standard with changes to conform to rules 3.150(a) and 3.190(k). (b) Limits motion for consolidation to defendant and provides that defendant waives his or her right to consolidation by failing to file a timely motion. Under standards relating to joinder of offenses and defendants, the prosecution may avoid the necessity for consolidation by charging offenses and defendants in a single indictment or information where consolidation is permissible. Omits provision of ABA Standard authorizing denial of consolidation if prosecuting attorney does not have “sufficient evidence to warrant trying” 1 of the “offenses” or if the court finds that the ends of justice would be defeated by consolidation. The lack of “sufficient evidence to warrant” trial of 1 of several charges of “related offenses” would be quite rare. In the rare case in which there is such a lack of evidence, the appropriate remedy would be a motion for continuance of all pending charges of related offenses, showing that the lack of evidence could probably be cured by a reasonable delay. The committee does not favor separate trials of charges of related offenses over the defendant’s objection. (c) Florida has no similar rule. Omits exception in ABA Standard in case “the prosecuting attorney did not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying (the) offense” or upon a finding that “the ends of justice would be defeated if the motion was granted.” See comment on (b). The rule is not intended to restrict defendant’s substantive rights. (d) Florida has no similar rule. The first sentence of ABA Standard is considered by the committee to state a rule of substantive law and is omitted as unnecessary.

1977 Amendment. The changes from the prior rule are intended to provide equal treatment for both the state and the defendant.

(1) In case 2 or more offenses are improperly charged in a single indictment or information, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the charges on timely motion.

(2) In case 2 or more charges of related offenses are joined in a single indictment or information, the court nevertheless shall grant a severance of charges on motion of the state or of a defendant:

(A) before trial on a showing that the severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense; or

(B) during trial, only with defendant’s consent, on a showing that the severance is necessary to achieve a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each offense.

(1) On motion of the state or a defendant, the court shall order a severance of defendants and separate trials:

(A) before trial, on a showing that the order is necessary to protect a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, or is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of 1 or more defendants; or

(B) during trial, only with defendant’s consent and on a showing that the order is necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of 1 or more defendants.

(2) If a defendant moves for a severance of defendants on the ground that an oral or written statement of a codefendant makes reference to him or her but is not admissible against him or her, the court shall determine whether the state will offer evidence of the statement at the trial. If the state intends to offer the statement in evidence, the court shall order the state to submit its evidence of the statement for consideration by the court and counsel for defendants and if the court determines that the statement is not admissible against the moving defendant, it shall require the state to elect 1 of the following courses:

(A) a joint trial at which evidence of the statement will not be admitted;

(B) a joint trial at which evidence of the statement will be admitted after all references to the moving defendant have been deleted, provided the court determines that admission of the evidence with deletions will not prejudice the moving defendant; or

(C) severance of the moving defendant.

(3) In cases in which, at the close of the state’s case or at the close of all of the evidence, the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that allegations on which the joinder of a defendant is based have been proved, the court shall, on motion of that defendant, grant a severance unless the court finds that severance is unnecessary to achieve a fair determination of that defendant’s guilt or innocence.

1968 Adoption. This subdivision rewords and adds to federal rule 14. It covers subject matter of section 918.02, Florida Statutes.

1972 Amendment. (a)(1) Severance on timely motion by defendant is mandatory if multiple offenses are improperly joined. (a)(2) Provides for severance of offenses before trial on showing that severance will promote a fair determination of guilt or innocence substantially as provided by former rule 3.190(j)(2) and, unlike any Florida rule, distinguishes motion during trial. (b)(1)Based on ABA Standard 2.3(b). Expands rule 3.190(j) to include defendant’s right to speedy trial as ground for severance and, unlike any Florida rule, distinguishes between motion before and motion during trial. (b)(2)Based on ABA Standard 2.3, subparagraphs (a) and (c). Requires court to determine whether the statement will be offered as distinguished from asking the state its intention. Requires production of evidence of the statement in the event it will be offered so that the court and counsel can intelligently deal with the problem. Florida has no similar rule. (b)(3)Substantially the same as ABA Standard, except that the proposed rule requires severance unless the court affirmatively finds that severance is unnecessary. Florida has no similar rule.

A defendant’s motion for severance of multiple offenses or defendants charged in a single indictment or information shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for such a motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain such a motion at the trial. The right to file such a motion is waived if it is not timely made.

If a defendant’s pretrial motion for severance is overruled, the defendant may renew the motion on the same grounds at or before the close of all the evidence at the trial.

1972 Adoption. (a) Relates solely to defendant’s motion for severance. Florida has no similar rule. (b) Florida has no similar rule.