John David Cherry Jr. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The dissent argues that the charged offenses were improperly joined because they were neither of the same or similar character nor based on connected acts, transactions, or a common scheme or plan. It rejects the majority's newly adopted "continuous course of conduct" standard and contends that the absence of discernible prejudice cannot cure misjoinder. The dissent would treat the drug and handgun-possession charges, and possibly the restraint charge, as potentially joinable but would separate them from the murder charge.