When can Utah courts try multiple robbery charges together? State v. Benson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed when multiple criminal charges may be tried together in State v. Benson, providing important guidance on joinder and severance in criminal cases involving related offenses.

Background and Facts

Benson was charged with four armed robberies committed in downtown Salt Lake City within twenty-four hours. The first robbery at a taqueria included stealing a blue Nissan Sentra. That same stolen vehicle was used as the getaway car in subsequent robberies at a gas station and Burger King. Police apprehended Benson driving the stolen vehicle and found evidence linking him to the crimes, including a stolen cell phone and cash. Benson moved to sever the taqueria robbery charges from the other robbery charges, arguing they were not sufficiently connected and that joinder would be prejudicial.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the severance motion under Utah Code section 77-8a-1, and (2) whether an erroneous jury instruction on stolen property presumptions required reversal.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of severance. Under Utah’s joinder statute, charges may be tried together if they are “otherwise connected together in their commission.” The court found the robberies sufficiently connected because Benson used the same stolen getaway vehicle throughout the crime spree and committed all offenses within a single twenty-four-hour period. The stolen Nissan “runs as a thread through the robberies,” distinguishing this case from others where temporal separation and lack of common elements supported severance. Regarding prejudice, Benson failed to demonstrate that joinder denied him a fair trial, particularly since he conceded evidence from each robbery would be admissible in separate trials under Rule 404(b).

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that defendants face a “difficult burden” when challenging joinder. Courts will find sufficient connection when crimes share common elements like the same weapon, vehicle, or occur in close temporal proximity. Defense counsel must provide specific legal analysis beyond conclusory statements about prejudice, demonstrating how evidence would be inadmissible in separate proceedings. The case also illustrates the invited error doctrine – when counsel tells the court that a jury instruction is supported by caselaw, even while disagreeing with it, appellate challenges to that instruction may be foreclosed.