California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The PEOPLE V. NETTLES, B213854, No. SA066812 (Cal. App. 2010):
Appellant argues the trial court erroneously believed that (1) he and Wilkins were "jointly charged" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1098, 10 and (2) Penal Code section 1098 mandated that appellant and Wilkins be jointly tried. However, even if appellant was not jointly charged and the section did not mandate joint trials in any event, the determination of whether to consolidate cases for trial is a matter within the trial court's discretion (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 574, 576-578 (Geier)).
Page 13
Moreover, "[b]ecause consolidation ordinarily promotes efficiency, the law prefers it." (Id. at p. 578, quoting People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 409.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.