<p> «header» HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO</p><p>State of Ohio : CASE NO.: «casenumber» PLAINTIFF : JUDGE: «judge» -vs- : «defendant» : MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS DEFENDANT :</p><p>Now comes the Defendant, «defendant», by and through the undersigned counsel, and </p><p> pursuant to Crim.R. 14, requests this Court to grant a separate trial as to the charges pending </p><p> herein.</p><p>In support of this request the Defendant states that trial together of these charges would </p><p> result in prejudice to the Defendant. The Defendant further states that these charges involve </p><p> offenses and dates that are unrelated and the interests of justice require a separate trial as to each.</p><p>In State v. Garrett, The Twelfth Appellate District held that the joinder of offenses solely </p><p> because they are of a same or similar character creates a greater risk of prejudice to the defendant</p><p> and the benefits from consolidation are reduced because unrelated offenses typically involve </p><p> different times, locations and witnesses. State v. Garrett, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-08-075, 2009-</p><p>Ohio-5422. “The admissibility of other acts evidence is carefully limited because of the </p><p> substantial danger that the jury will convict the defendant solely because it assumes that the </p><p> defendant has a propensity to commit criminal acts, or deserves punishment . . .” Id. at 17, citing </p><p>Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85, 91, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 11 (C.A.D.C. 1964). The danger of </p><p> prejudicing the jury against the Defendant is particularly high when the other acts are very </p><p> similar to the charged offense. Id. Crim.R. 8(A) permits joinder if two or more offenses could be charged in the same indictment, information or complaint. The two charges against «lastname» could not have been charged in the same complaint as they were from two separate days. </p><p>{FILL IN APPLICABLE FACTS}</p><p>Joinder of these two cases would result in unfair prejudice against «lastname». Further, these two charges are unrelated and could not have been charged in the same information, indictment or complaint. Therefore, pursuant to Crim.R. 14 the two cases against «lastname» should be severed.</p><p>Respectfully Submitted,</p><p>______«attorney», # «osc_number» Attorney for Defendant «address1» «city», «state» «zip» «phone»</p><p>CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE</p><p>I hereby certify that a copy of this document was served upon the Hamilton County Prosecutor/City of Cincinnati Prosecutor on ______by:</p><p> Ordinary Mail  Fax  Hand Delivery  Dedicated Drop Box</p><p>______Attorney for Defendant</p>