Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Indiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“The court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, or counter-claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counter-claims, or issues." (See Jessop v. Werner Transp. Co., Inc. (1970) 147 Ind. App. 408, 411.)

“As the Court of Appeals has pointed out on several occasions, the rule seeks to balance the interests of convenience and economy against the likelihood of substantial prejudice to the defendant's case." (See Jamrosz v. Res. Benefits, Inc. (2005) 839 N.E.2d 746, 761; State v. Gutierrez (2007) 866 N.E.2d 747, 749.)

Procedural Steps Involved to Preserve Error from the Denial of a Pre-trial Motion for Severance

“Defendants have no absolute right to a separate trial or severance, but they may ask the trial judge to exercise her discretion to grant such a motion.” (See Rouster v. State (1999) 705 N.E.2d 999, 1004.)

“Our statutes require a defendant to comply with certain procedural steps to preserve error from the denial of a pre-trial motion for severance.” (See Kissel v. State, Court of Appeals Cause No. 20A05-1606-CR-1462, at *7 (Ind. App. June 13, 2017).)

“If a defendant's pretrial motion for severance of offenses or motion for a separate trial is overruled, the motion may be renewed on the same grounds before or at the close of all the evidence during trial.” (See id.)

“The right to severance of offenses or separate trial is waived by failure to renew the motion.” (See id.)

“Thus, where a defendant moves for severance before trial, is denied severance, and fails to renew that motion by the close of evidence at trial, he may not seek appeal from the denial of that motion.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

“TR. 42(B) gives the trial court discretion as to granting or denying separate trials.” (See Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co. (1976) 171 Ind. App. 166, 175.)

“[I]t appears that generally a consolidation of causes of action cannot be successfully demanded as a matter of right, but is to be granted or denied in the discretion of the trial court, and such ruling is not cause for reversal unless such discretion is manifestly abused.” (See Kruse, Kruse & Miklosko, Inc. v. Beedy (1976) 170 Ind. App. 373, 421.)

“Under the abuse of discretion standard, the trial court must determine whether the severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of each offense.” (See Kissel v. State, Court of Appeals Cause No. 20A05-1606-CR-1462, at *8 (Ind. App. June 13, 2017).)

“Whenever the court determines that this type of treatment will be conducive to the expeditious handling of the action, will promote judicial economy, or will avoid prejudice to the litigants, it may order a properly joined claim or claims to be tried separately.” (See McCoy v. Like (1987) 511 N.E.2d 501, 506.)

“Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.” (See McCoy v. Like (1987) 511 N.E.2d 501, 507.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial

It is well settled that “a defendant is not, however, entitled to a separate trial merely because a co-defendant implicates that defendant. We initially consider the events that actually occurred at trial to determine whether a motion for separate trials indeed should have been granted, had it been filed.” (See Rouster v. State (1999) 705 N.E.2d 999, 1004-05.)

It is also well settled that “a motion for a separate trial must be made prior to the commencement of the trial. A defendant's right to a separate trial is waived if the defendant fails to make the motion at the appropriate time.” (See Fredrick v. State (2001) 755 N.E.2d 1078, 1081.)