Seattle Attorneys Blog
When a person faces multiple sex crime charges involving different complainants, one of the most important defense decisions is whether to move for separate trials. In State v. Krause, No. 103835-6 (Wash. Mar. 26, 2026), the Washington Supreme Court issued a 7-2 published decision that significantly raises the bar for defendants seeking to sever multiple rape charges. The ruling reverses a Court of Appeals decision that had granted severance and has immediate implications for how sex offense cases are tried throughout Washington, including in Snohomish County, where this case originated.
If you or someone you know is facing sex crime charges in Washington, the criminal defense team at Blair & Kim can help you understand your rights and build an effective defense strategy. Contact us for a confidential case evaluation.
What Happened in State v. Krause?
The defendant was charged in Snohomish County Superior Court with four counts of rape involving three complainants. All three knew each other, and their decisions to report the defendant were interconnected—one complainant’s report influenced another’s decision to come forward. The defendant maintained that all sexual encounters were consensual.
Before trial, the defendant moved multiple times to sever the charges into separate trials under CrR 4.4(b), arguing that joinder of multiple rape counts involving different people would unfairly prejudice him. The trial court denied severance each time, including after the State rested its case. The jury convicted the defendant on all four counts.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by denying severance. But the Washington Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the convictions, finding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under the four-factor test established in State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24 (1994).
The Four-Factor Test for Severance
Under Russell, a trial court evaluating a severance motion must consider four factors to determine whether the potential prejudice from joinder requires separate trials:
First, the strength of the State’s evidence on each count. Courts look at whether the State is using joinder to bolster weak charges with strong ones. In Krause, the Supreme Court found the evidence was similarly strong across all counts, with each complainant providing direct testimony of nonconsensual contact.
Second, the clarity of the defenses. Courts consider whether a defendant would need to present conflicting or mutually exclusive defenses to different counts. Here, the defendant’s defense was the same on every count: consent. The Supreme Court found this weighed against severance.
Third, whether the court could properly instruct the jury to consider each count separately. The Supreme Court held that jurors are presumed to follow limiting instructions, and a proper instruction to evaluate each count independently mitigates the risk of prejudice from joinder.
Fourth, the cross-admissibility of evidence. This factor proved decisive. Although the State conceded that the specific details of each complainant’s account would not have been admissible in separate trials, the Supreme Court found that the fact of each complainant’s report was cross-admissible because their decisions to come forward were intertwined—one influenced the other. This made the reporting history itself relevant to the credibility and timing of each disclosure.
Blair & Kim’s criminal defense team defends clients against all types of felony charges, including sex offenses, throughout King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. With offices in Seattle and Bellevue, the firm serves clients in Kirkland, Redmond, and throughout the region. Reach out to discuss your case.
The Dissent: A Warning About Fair Trial Rights
Justice Gordon McCloud, joined by Justice Mañgas, dissented sharply. The dissent argued that the majority effectively overruled established precedent holding that sex offense charges are especially prejudicial in character and that courts should err on the side of severance to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The dissent contended the majority was instead adopting a new rule: in sex offense cases, courts should err on the side of joinder to protect complainants from the burden of multiple trials.
The dissent emphasized that judicial economy—including the inconvenience to witnesses—can never outweigh a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, citing State v. Bluford, 182 Wn.2d 305 (2014). The dissent also noted that the State itself conceded the details of each complainant’s account would not have been admissible in separate trials, yet the jury heard all of them.
What This Means for Criminal Defense in Washington
1. Severance Motions in Sex Cases Face a Higher Bar
After Krause, defendants facing multiple sex offense charges involving different complainants will find it significantly harder to obtain separate trials. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the benefits of joinder—including protecting complainants from testifying multiple times—signals that Washington courts will weigh victim impact heavily in the severance analysis. Defense attorneys must develop stronger records on each Russell factor, particularly on how joinder creates actual prejudice beyond the general risk inherent in multi-count sex offense trials.
2. Cross-Admissibility Does Not Require the Full Details
The Krause majority drew a distinction between the details of each complainant’s account and the fact of each complainant’s report. Even when the details are not cross-admissible, the reporting decisions themselves may be cross-admissible if they are intertwined. This is a significant expansion of the cross-admissibility factor and gives prosecutors additional arguments for keeping charges joined.
3. Limiting Instructions Are Presumed Effective
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions directing them to consider each count separately. For defense attorneys, this means that arguing a jury “cannot realistically compartmentalize” the evidence from multiple complainants will carry less weight unless the record demonstrates specific, concrete prejudice from joinder.
4. The Defense Strategy Must Adapt
Given that severance is now harder to obtain, defense attorneys facing joined sex offense charges must adapt their trial strategy accordingly. This may include requesting detailed limiting instructions, objecting to specific testimony under ER 404(b), seeking to exclude the details of each complainant’s account while conceding the fact of the report, and developing a defense narrative that accounts for multiple complainants without appearing evasive.
Protecting Your Rights When Facing Serious Charges
Sex offense charges are among the most serious in Washington’s criminal code. A conviction can result in years or decades of imprisonment, mandatory sex offender registration, and permanent collateral consequences affecting employment, housing, and family relationships. After Krause, defendants in multi-complainant cases face the additional challenge of defending against all charges in a single trial.
The attorneys at Blair & Kim, PLLC have the experience and trial skills to defend clients against serious felony charges, including sex offenses, assault, and domestic violence-related crimes. The firm’s criminal defense team includes former prosecutors who understand how the State builds its case and how to challenge it effectively.
Every case is different. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you are facing sex offense charges or any serious criminal case in Washington, contact Blair & Kim today at (206) 622-6562 or submit a confidential inquiry online.