WPC GAS ƋHm`=exmqveGNO>HnjЗ$946 A/[frQqs3kbpc=X]ZH1',ԺpS*9))ONe.ib_E }q I_ۏ!,K/)4%Pd۬ЪݙGNiXQ>5cN`_:GFn%=hEs{؄*@s6"?d+i)oz+sIr0`ikY:jݛ$ nYK_t7-0z [z-,CSjQm$TP'0i糁#t1XZ׵_z hK**eCW[{弰IN˳#e8 {c/I^ i F7/ʛOH~^\Qo\~ndaOV3GQ͠1Ka#9#!!j?" %" 0"wG$4K$_$U:n$U:$9$ 0W& 0#D';(P)ZF+ 1u+o,U:-U:-- 0c5f5a6{66 898R91;;U3:q<<K==g> B?U:@i@@i@}AfAiAf^BBiECCU:iEiEJ FVGG\HH}^IeI@KU:KLU:MMU:ZOOPU:RLRU:R"SU:SSU:TTU:vUUU:TVVU:WWU:YYU:[[U:]^U:^^U:__U:Z``U:0aJjaU:bbjU:l Ol9UlmU:IooU:bqqU:XLZSee378S.W.2dat759-60.Ineachofthesecircumstances, thereissomeconnectinglinkbetweenthe   indictmentstobeconsolidated.Bruce,213Tenn.at669,378S.W.2dat759.   '$X   3    XXԀAlthoughRule8(a)providesformandatoryjoinderinthesecases,thetrialcourtstilldoes  retaindiscretiontograntaseveranceoftheoffensesundersomecircumstances.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.  14(b)(2).However,sincethedecisiontograntaseverancefromamandatoryjoinderisgovernedby | specificcriteria,thetrialcourtsdiscretionisnotasbroadasitwaspriortotheadoptionoftheRulesof B : CriminalProcedure. N  '$X   4    XXԀSincenoprovisionintheRulesallowsforconsolidationofwhollyunrelatedoffensesthatdo  notevenshareasimilarityofconduct,itfollowsthatthetrialcourthasnodiscretiontoordera  consolidationofthoseoffenses.Cf.Bruce,213Tenn.at669,378S.W.2dat759(holdingreversible | errortoconsolidatewhollyunrelatedoffenses,evenpriortotheRulesofCriminalProcedure). A  '$X   5    XXԀSee,e.g.,Statev.Furlough,797S.W.2d631,642(Tenn.Crim.App.1990)( Itiswithinthe  trialcourtsdiscretionwhethertograntaseveranceofoffenses.);Statev.Wiseman,643S.W.2d354,  362(Tenn.Crim.App.1982)( Theissueofseveranceorjoinderofoffensesisalsoamatterwhichis | addressedtothesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.).   '$X   6    XXԀSee,e.g.,Statev.McKnight,900S.W.2d36,50(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)( Whileseveranceis  ordinarilyamatterwhichrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,thatgeneralruleisnot  necessarilyapplicabletotheseveranceofoffenses.);Statev.Edwards,868S.W.2d682,691(Tenn. | Crim.App.1993)( Whileseveranceisordinarilyamatterwhichrestswithinthesounddiscretionofthe B : trialcourt,thatgeneralruleisnotnecessarilyapplicableinrelationtotheseveranceofoffenses.);State   v.Peacock,638S.W.2d837,839(Tenn.Crim.App.1982)( Likewise,thematterofseveranceof   offensesunderRule14(b)(1)isnotsolelywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.). $  '$X   7    XXԀInatleastonecase,theintermediatecourtstatedthatseveranceissuesmaynotbewithinthe  sounddiscretionofthetrialcourt,butitneverthelessappliedanabuseofdiscretionstandard.See  Edwards,868S.W.2dat694(concludingthat [i]nourview,thetrialcourtactedwithintheboundariesof | itsdiscretionindenyingthemotiontosever).Inothercases,theintermediatecourthasdecided B : severancequestionswithoutreferencetoanystandardofreview.See,e.g.,Statev.Adams,859   S.W.2d359,362(Tenn.Crim.App.1992). l  '$X   9    ݀XXSeealsoBunch,605S.W.2dat230(statingthatbeforeoffensesmaybesaidtoconstitute  signaturecrimes, themodusoperandioftheothercrimeandofthecrimeontrialmustbesubstantially   identicalandmustbesouniquethatproofthatthedefendantcommittedtheotheroffensefairlytendsto  establishthathealsocommittedtheoffensewithwhichheischarged.)(emphasisinoriginal).U(3$ !XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  (3$ !XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  ($$   1  $$$$)!dxdx%2A`Arial   '$X   13    XXԀEventheintermediatecourtconcededthat theindividualsimilaritiesbetweentherobberies  arenotparticularlyunique....Statev.Shirley,No.03C01-9610-CR-00369,slipop.at2223(Tenn.  Crim.App.May27,1998).Instead,theintermediatecourtbelievedthat whenconsideredtogether,the | circumstancesoftheoffensesestablishedadistinctivedesignwithsufficientuniquenessofmethodto B : constituteacommonschemeorplan.Id.at23.Respectfully,wefailtoseehowcrimesthatdonot   haveauniquemethodwhenexaminedindividuallysomehowbecomemoreuniquewhenviewedinthe   aggregate.Thecrimeswereeithercommittedusingauniquemethod,ortheywerenot.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 "  _4XX   Ad FILEDXzX4  November1,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAY H    '$X   8    ݀XXԀAsstatedpreviously,sinceadefendanthasanabsoluterighttoaseveranceofoffensesthat  aremerelyofthesameorsimilarcharacter,seeTenn.R.Crim.P.14(b)(1),thediscretionofthetrial  courttoconsolidatethesetypesofoffensesisvirtuallyeliminated.   '$X   11    ݀XXԀThefirstrobberywasofaconveniencestoreonNovember29,1995,at8:00p.m.The  secondrobberywasofavideorentalstoretendayslateronDecember9at7:10p.m.Thelasttwo  robberieswerealsoofconveniencestoresonDecember10at4:00p.m.and4:30p.m.respectively. D  '$X   20    ݀XXBecausetherearenofindingsoffactorconclusionsoflawfromthetrialcourtintherecord,  wecannotbeabsolutelycertainofthetrialcourtsbasisforitsdecision.   '$X   21    ݀XXԀThesoleeyewitnesstothesecondrobberyonDecember10couldnotpositivelyidentifythe  appellantastheoffenderattrial,norcouldsheidentifytheappellantinthelineup.   ThesoleeyewitnessofthefirstDecember10robberydididentifytheappellantatthetrial.  However,shecouldnotpositivelyidentifytheappellantastheoffenderearlieratalineup,andshe j b describedherselfas realbadatnoticingdetails.Atthelineup,sheidentifiedtwopeopleasthe (  possibleoffender.    TherewerethreewitnessestotheDecember9robbery.OneofthewitnessfromtheDecember   9robberyadmittedthatshewashesitantaboutheridentificationoftheappellantastheoffender,butshe b Z testifiedthat herinstinctstoldherthattheappellant wastheone.Asecondwitnesscouldnotmake   anidentificationbecauseitwastoodarktoseetheoffender.Thethirdwitnessdidmakeapositive    identificationoftheappellantfromaphotographiclineup.    Finally,thesolewitnessattheNovember29robberydidmakeapositiveidentificationofthe ZR  appellantastheoffenderalthoughshewascertaintheoffenderhadfrecklesaroundhiseyes.Itis   uncontrovertedthattheappellanthasnofrecklesonhisface. ,  '$X   12    XXԀTheCourtofCriminalAppealsnotesthatintheonecasewheretheoffenderdidnotrequest  thatthecashdrawerbeplacedonthecounter,thewitnesshadalreadydoneso.However,wefindit  significantthatbeforethewitnessofthesecondrobberyonDecember10placedthecashdraweronthe | counter,theoffenderwalkedintothestoretothecounter,cockedhisgun,andtoldthewitnesstoopen B : theregister.Thewitnesstestifiedthattheoffenderdidnotrequestthatthedrawertobeplacedonthe   counterwhenhedemandedthatsheopentheregister,althoughtheoffenderhadsorequestedinallof   theotheroffenses.Thiswitnessplacedthedraweronthecounterofherownaccord.Itsimplyisnot | t clearthatthewitnessfoiledtheotherwiseapparentmodusoperandioftheoffender.   '$X   14    ݀XXIntheNovember29robbery,thewitnessstatedthattheoffenderwaswearingablackshirt,  andinthesecondDecember10robbery,thewitnesstestifiedoncrossexaminationthattheoffender  waswearingagraysweatshirt.   '$X   16    ݀XXIntheDecember9robbery,theoffenderescapedinawhiteChevyCorsicaorChevyBaretta  whichwasparkedoutsidethestore.Intheothercases,theoffenderescapedonfootwithoutany  witnesseshearingorseeingacar.   Inaddition,theoffenderintheDecember9robbery#XLXb#XXLbackedoutofthestore,watchinghisvictims j b asheleft.Inalloftheotheroffenses,theoffenderturnedtoexitthestore. (    IntheNovember29robbery,theoffenderforcedhisvictimtolieonthefloorwhileheleft,but  thisdidnotoccurinanyoftheotherrobberies.   '$X   15    ݀XXԀInaddition,thewitnessestotheDecember9robberyofthevideorentalstoretestifiedthat  theglovesweretoobigfortheoffender,butthewitnessofthesecondrobberyonthenextdaytestified  thatthegloveswerenotloosefitting.   '$X   17    ݀XXIntheDecember9robbery,theoffendertookoffhismaskbeforehedroveawaywhich  enabledonewitnesstoidentifyhim.InthesecondrobberyonDecember10,theoffenderremovedhis  maskbeforehewasevenoutofthestore. @  '$X   22    ݀XXThesoleeyewitnesstothesecondrobberyonDecember10originallystatedthatthe  offenderworeagraysweatshirt.Bythetimeoftrial,hertestimonychangedtoidentifytheoffenderas  wearingagreenjacket,dueinlargeparttoherpayingmorecloseattentiontotheoffenderinadream.  Atthetimeofhisarrestlessthanthirtyminutesafterthisrobbery,theappellantwasarrestedwearinga j b bluesweatshirt. (   ThesoleeyewitnesstothefirstrobberyonDecember10originallytoldthepoliceinvestigator   thattheoffendershairwas straight,notcurly.Bythetimeoftrial,hertestimonyhadchangedsothat   theoffendershairwas kindofwavy,adescriptionwhichmoreaccuratelydescribedtheappellantshair b Z atthattime.Inaddition,thiswitnessidentifiedthegreenjacketattrial,butwithinanhouroftherobbery,   shecouldnotidentifythecolorofthejacket.     ThesoleeyewitnesstotheNovember29robberyoriginallyidentifiedtheoffenderaswearinga   blackshirt.Bythetimeoftrial,shechangedhertestimonytoidentifytheoffenderaswearingajacket, ZR  whichwasmoreconsistentwithotherwitnesses.    Inaddition,alloftheStateswitnessesstatedthatthejacketorshirtwornbytheoffenderwas   zippedorbuttoned.However,thejacketthepolicefoundintheappellantscarcouldnotbezippedor   buttoned.   '$X   19    ݀XXTheterm modusoperandiisdefinedasa [m]ethodofoperatingordoingthings(M.O.).  Termusedbypoliceandcriminalinvestigatorstodescribetheparticularmethodofacriminalsactivity.  BlacksLawDictionary1004(6thed.1990)(emphasisadded).   '$X   10    ݀XXԀAlthoughtherobberieswerecommittedwithablackpistol,therewasnoagreementonthe  kindofpistolused.IntheNovember29robbery,thewitnessstatedthatshethoughtthegunwasabb  gun,althoughshewasnotsure.IntheDecember9robbery,onewitnessdefinitelythoughtthegunwas  abbgun,butthewitnessofthefirstrobberyonDecember10#XLXa#XXLwasemphaticthatthegunwasan j b automaticgunandnotabbgun.Thewitnessofthelastrobberymerelydescribedthegunasa police (  gun. ##Pd# >  '$X   1    ݀XXThefirstcountallegedthattheappellantrobbedaconveniencestoreonNovember29,1995,  at8:00p.m.ThesecondcountallegedthattendayslateronDecember9,1995,theappellantrobbeda  videorentalstoreat7:10p.m.Countsthreeandfouroftheindictmentallegedrobberiesoftwo  conveniencestoresonDecember10,1995,occurringat4:00p.m.and4:30p.m.respectively.   '$X   18    ݀XXForexample,allofthewitnessestestifiedthattheoffenderwasawhitemalelikethe  appellant,thattheoffenderhadthesamehaircolorastheappellant,andthattheoffenderwasaboutthe  sameheightandweightastheappellant.5ua'L i) !XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  _w†x†  jxB2.jzT#`  `@Et ` 8ttxP x_@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE   @*ATKNOXVILLE   STATEOFTENNESSEE,   8   )  FORPUBLICATION  @d   0      8   ) Appellee,     8   )  FILED:NOVEMBER1,1999  6   0      8   )v.  0      8   )  BRADLEYCRIMINAL     0      8   )DONALDRAYSHIRLEY,   8   )  HON.MAYOL.MASHBURN, #      0      8   )  JUDGE    Appellant.     8   )   |    0      8   )  No.03S019902CR00014 b    0      8     0      8   FortheAppellant:     8     FortheAppellee:  WilliamJ.Brown     8     PaulG.Summers  Nashville,Tennessee   8     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter    0      8     MichaelE.Moore  0      8     SolicitorGeneral  0      8     ElizabethT.Ryan  0      8     AssistantAttorneyGeneral  0      8     Nashville,Tennessee H!  #  $   0     @KK- h!XX OPINION#XzX! h #   .#( j 8zXdXXd8   *wy$zddd Xdd Xdd X%%w,dd ,dd +      AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDINPART,AND 4-3 REMANDED '5.4  '  BARKER,J. 3,=  1'%4->0  1j 8LXdXXd8   _. Inthiscaseweconsidertheproperstandardofappellatereviewofatrial   courtsdenialofamotiontoseveroffensesunderTennesseeRuleofCriminal  Procedure14(b)(1).Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weholdthatadenialofa   severancewillonlybereversedforanabuseofdiscretion.Wealsoholdthatthetrial l d courtinthiscaseabuseditsdiscretionindenyingaseverancebecausethemethods 80 usedtocommittheoffenseswerenotsomateriallydistinctoruniqueastorisetoan   inferenceofidentity.Becausewefindthatthisabuseofdiscretionwasnotharmless,   thedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andthiscaseisremanded   tothetrialcourtfornewtrials. h`    BACKGROUND      OnJanuary17,1996,aBradleyCountygrandjuryreturnedanindictment  chargingtheappellant,DonaldRayShirley,withfourcountsofarmedrobbery.  #  1      ׀ ph Shortlythereafter,theappellantmovedtohavetheoffensesseveredandtried < 4 separatelypursuanttoRuleofCriminalProcedure14(b)(1).Duringthehearingonthe " motiontosever,theStatearguedthattheoffenseswerepartsofacommonscheme #  orplanbecausethesimilaritiesoftheoffensesrevealedthatadistinctivedesignwas %" employed.Inresponse,theappellantarguedthatalthoughtheoffensesweresimilar, l'd $ thedifferencesintheoffensesweresuchthatnoinferenceofidentitycouldbemade. 8)0"& Aftertakingthematterunderconsideration,thetrialcourtdeniedtheappellants +#( motionwithoutstatinganyofitsfindingsoffactorconclusionsoflawontherecord. ,%*   Followingatwodaytrial,ajuryfoundtheappellantguiltyofthreeofthefour h0`). countsofarmedrobbery.Hewassentencedtoserveconcurrentsentencesoftwelve 42,+0 x† xTR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT x  yearsforeachofthethreeoffensesandwasfinedatotalofsixtythousanddollars.  Onappeal,theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheappellantsconvictionsand  sentences,andinaddressingthestandardofappellatereview,theintermediatecourt   heldthatadenialofaseverancewastobereviewedforanabuseofdiscretion.That l d courtalsoheldthatthetrialcourtactedwithinitsdiscretionindenyingthemotionto 80 severbecausetheevidencepresentedattrialdemonstratedthattheoffenseswere   partsofacommonschemeorplan.    Weagreethatatrialcourtsdenialofseveranceshouldbereviewedforan h` abuseofdiscretion.However,weholdthatthetrialcourtappliedanincorrectlegal 4, standardandthereforeabuseditsdiscretioninfindingthattheoffenseswerepartsof  acommonschemeorplan.    STANDARDOFAPPELLATEREVIEW  d\    Theproperstandardbywhichtoreviewadenialofamotiontoseveroffenses " undertheRulesofCriminalProcedureisanissueoffirstimpressionforthisCourt. #  PriortotheadoptionoftheRules,thisCourtfollowedtheprinciplethatthe matterof %" consolidatingseparateindictmentsfortrialisprocedural[,]andgenerallythisisa l'd $ matterwithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.SeeBrucev.State,213Tenn.666,667, 8)0"& 378S.W.2d758,759(1964).Thediscretionofthetrialcourtstoconsolidateseveral +#( offensesinasingletrialwasverybroad,andalthoughsuchdiscretionwasnot ,%* absolute,thisCourtusuallyonlyrequiredthattheconsolidatedoffensescontainsome .',  connectinglink.Id.at669,378S.W.2dat759;seealsoJettv.State,556S.W.2d h0`). 236,23738(Tenn.Crim.App.1977).{  #  2      ׀Inrarecases,thisCourtwouldreversea 42,+0 convictionforimproperconsolidationofoffenses,butsuchareversalwasusually  limitedtocircumstancesinwhichtheoffenseswereeitherwhollyunrelatedorthe  evidenceestablishingoneoffensewas entirelydifferentfromtheevidence...   [establishing]theotheroffensecharged.SeeBullardv.State,208Tenn.641,645, l d 348S.W.2d303,305(1961). 80  SincetheeffectivedateoftheRulesofCriminalProcedureonJuly13,1978,   however,thediscretionofthetrialcourtstoconsolidateorseveroffenseshasbeen   morestrictlygoverned.Forexample,consolidationofmultipleoffensesinasingletrial h` isnowmandatory"andthereforeoutsidethediscretionofthetrialcourt"whenthe 4, offenses arebaseduponthesameconductorarisefromthesamecriminal  episode....SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.8(a),13(a).|  #  3      ׀TheRuleshavealsosignificantly  limitedthecourtsdiscretiontoconsolidateoffensesthat areofthesameorsimilar  character,sinceinsuchcaseadefendanthasanabsoluterighttoaseveranceof d\ theseoffensesunderRule14(b)(1)whenaseveranceisrequested.Further,the 0 ( Rulesstillcontemplatethattrialcourtshavenodiscretiontoconsolidateoffensesthat ! arewhollyunrelatedorwithoutanysimilarityofconduct,atleastwhenconsolidationis #  overthedefendantsobjection.}z   #  4       %" Ї BecausetheRulesofCriminalProcedurehavesignificantlylimitedthe  discretionoftrialcourtstoconsolidateandseveroffenses,variouspanelsoftheCourt  ofCriminalAppealshavedebatedwhetherthisdecisionunderRule14(b)(1)isstill   withinthesounddiscretionofthetrialcourts.Whilesomepanelsoftheintermediate l d courthavecontinuedtoholdthattrialcourtsstillenjoydiscretiontoorderaseverance 80 ofoffenses,~  #  5      ׀otherpanelshavestatedthatRule14(b)(1)seemstochangethat   generalrulewhentheoffensesarepermissivelyjoinedpursuanttoRule8(b).  #  6      ׀   Therefore,auniformstandardofreviewhasnotbeenusedordeveloped.   #  7          Toclarifythelawinthisarea,weholdthatdecisionstoconsolidateorsever 4, offensespursuanttoRules8(b)and14(b)(1)aretobereviewedforanabuseof  discretion.ReadingRules8(b)and14(b)(1)together,itisclearthatthediscretionof  thetrialcourtstopermissivelyjoinandseveroffensesissignificantlylimitedinmost  cases.  #  8      ׀Inonecase,however,theRulesstillallowthetrialcourtwidediscretiontojoin d\ offensesforasingletrial,i.e.,whentheoffensesarepartsofacommonschemeor 0 ( planandwhentheoffensesoughttobeseveredwouldbeadmissibleasevidencein ! thetrialoftheotheroffenses.Sincethetrialcourtretainsdiscretiontoconsolidate #  offensesinthatonecircumstance,itislogicalthatthetrialcourtsdecisionto  consolidatetheseoffenses"ortodenyaseverance"shouldonlybereversedforan  abuseofthatdiscretion.   ̀ Discretionessentially denotestheabsenceofahardandfastrule.See 80 Ballardv.Herzke,924S.W.2d652,661(Tenn.1996).Thedecisionofatrialcourtto   severoffensespursuanttoRule14(b)(1)isneverpredeterminedandwillnecessarily   turnonthefactsofaparticularcase.Therefore,atrialcourtsrefusaltosever   offenseswillbereversedonlywhenthe courtappliedanincorrectlegalstandard,or h` reachedadecisionwhichisagainstlogicorreasoningthatcausedaninjusticetothe 4, partycomplaining.SeeStatev.Shuck,953S.W.2d662,669(Tenn.1997)(citing  Ballard,924S.W.2dat661).    SEVERANCE d\     Althoughthetrialcourtinthiscaseheldahearingontheseveranceissue,the " courtdidnotmakeanyfindingsoffactorconclusionsoflawontherecord.Therefore, #  wehaveexaminedthetranscriptoftheseverancehearinginitstotalitytodetermine %" whetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingthedefendantsmotiontosever l'd $ theoffenses.Aftercloselyexaminingalloftheevidencebeforethecourtatthe 8)0"& hearing,weholdthatthe%  Ԁtrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingthemotionto +#( severtheoffenses,andweremandthiscasetothetrialcourtfornewtrialsoneachof ,%* theoffenses. .',  The primaryinquiryintowhetheraseveranceshouldhavebeengrantedunder 42,+0 Rule14iswhethertheevidenceofonecrimewouldbeadmissibleinthetrialofthe 4,2 otherifthetwocountsofindictmenthadbeensevered.Statev.Burchfield,664 5.4 S.W.2d284,286(Tenn.1984).Toensurethatadefendantreceivesafairtrial,  TennesseeRuleofEvidence404(b)excludesevidenceof othercrimes,wrongs,or  actscommittedbythedefendantwhenofferedonlytoshowthedefendants   propensitytocommitthose crimes,wrongs,oracts.However,whenoffenses l d allegedtobepartsofacommonschemeorplanareotherwiserelevanttoamaterial 80 issueattrial,thenRule404willnotbartheiradmissibilityintoevidence.SeeBunchv.   State,605S.W.2d227,229(Tenn.1980).    Therelevanceofoffensesallegedtobepartsofacommonschemeorplan h` dependsuponthetypeofevidenceoffered.InTennessee,therearethreetypesof 4, commonschemeorplanevidence:(1)offensesthatrevealadistinctivedesignorare  sosimilarastoconstitute signaturecrimes;(2)offensesthatarepartofalarger,  continuingplanorconspiracy;and(3)offensesthatareallpartofthesamecriminal  transaction.SeegenerallyNeilP.Cohenetal.,TennesseeLawofEvidence d\ 404.11,at180(3ded.1995).Inthiscase,theCourtofCriminalAppealsfoundthat 0 ( thevariousrobberieswerecommittedwithadistinctivedesign,andtheStatealso ! agreesthatthisistheonlycategoryintowhichtheseoffensescouldfall. #   Themostcommonbasisforofferingevidenceofadistinctivedesignisto `'X $ establishtheidentityofaperpetrator.SeeStatev.McCary,922S.W.2d511,514 ,)$"& (Tenn.1996);Statev.Parton,694S.W.2d299,303(Tenn.1985).Inthiscase,the *#( identityoftheoffenderwasthecentralissueattrial,andtherefore,ifadistinctive ,%* designcouldbeshown,thenevidenceofoffensesconstitutingacommonschemeor .', planwouldberelevant.However,beforemultipleoffensesmaybesaidtoevincea \0T). distinctivedesign,the modusoperandiemployedmustbesouniqueanddistinctive (2 +0 astobelikeasignature.Statev.Carter,714S.W.2d241,245(Tenn.1986).  #  9      ׀ 3,2 w† wTR[A' Legal[A' Legal A' Legal A' LegalT w  Althoughtheoffensesneednotbeidenticalineveryrespect,Bunchv.State,605  S.W.2d227,231(Tenn.1980),themethodsusedincommittingtheoffensesmust  have suchunusualparticularitiesthatreasonablemencanconcludethatitwouldnot   likelybeemployedbydifferentpersons.SeeHarrisv.State,189Tenn.635,644, l d 227S.W.2d8,11(Tenn.1950).Onlywhenthemethodusedtocommitthecrimesis 80 souniqueastobelikeasignaturecantheinferenceofidentityproperlyarise.    TheStatehasarguedinthiscasethatthesimilaritiesintheoffensesaresuch   thatadistinctivedesignmaybeinferred.Weagreethattheoffensesinthiscasedo h` shareanumberofsimilarities.Forexample,allfourrobberieswerecommittedbya 4, personwearingablackskimaskwithablackgun,  #  10      ׀therobberiesoccurredwithina  relativelyshortperiodoftime,r  #  11      ׀andinthreeoftherobberiestheoffenderrequested  thatthecashregisterdrawerbeplacedonthecounter.However,acourtmustalso  looktothemethodsusedtocommitthecrimesandnotmerelyenumeratetheir d\ similaritiesanddifferences.Eventhoughoffensesmaybesimilarinmanyrespects, 0 ( theycannotbeclassifiedassignaturecrimesiftheylackadistinctmodusoperandi. !  Whenthemethodsusedtocommittherobberiesinthiscaseareexamined, %" nonearesouniquethattheymaybesaidtobearthestamporimprimaturofthe `'X $ appellant.Theuseofablackskimask,gloves,andguntocommitarmedrobberyis ,)$"& simplynotsounusualthatreasonablepeoplewouldconcludethatthesameperson *#( committedalloftheoffenses.SeeHarris,189Tenn.at644,227S.W.2dat11.  Similarly,theoffendersrequestthatthecashregisterdrawerbeplacedonthecounter  inthreeoftherobberiesdoesnotshowadistinctivedesign.  #  12      ׀ Differentpersonscould   easilyhaveemployedtheplanandmethodusedineachrobbery.Cf.Statev.Bobo, l d 724S.W.2d760,765(Tenn.Crim.App.1981).  #  13       80  Likewise,therearemanydifferencesintherobberieswhichdemonstratethat   theoffensesdonotshareadistinctoruniquemodusoperandi.Forexample,the   testimonyattheseverancehearingestablishedthattherobberworeagreenarmy h` jacketintwooftherobberiesandthattheoffenderworeablackshirtandgray 4, sweatshirtintheothertworobberies.z   #  14      ׀Theoffenderwasalsodescribedinthree  casesaswearingblackgloves,butthevariouswitnessesdisagreedastowhetherthe  gloveswereclothorleather.  #  15      ׀Further,themethodofescapewasdifferentinthe  robberies,  #  16      ׀andintwooftherobberies,theoffenderremovedhisskimaskbeforethe d\ robberywascompleted.   #  17      ׀Becauseofthedifferencesinthecommissionsofthe  robberies,weareunabletosaythatadistinctoruniquemodusoperandiwasused.   Attheseverancehearing,theStateintroducedevidenceinanattempttoshow l d thattheappellantwasthepersonwhocommittedalloftherobberies.Althoughonly 80 onewitnesswasabletoidentifytheappellantasthepersonwhocommittedanyofthe   robberies,allofthewitnessesagreedthattheappellantsharedthesamephysical   characteristicsastheoffender.n6  #  18      ׀However,thetrialcourtmustlookforadistinctive   methodusedtocommitthecrimesandnotsimplyforevidencetendingtoshowthat h` thedefendantwastheoffender.Byitsverydefinition,amodusoperandiisnot 4, revealedmerelybyevidenceshowingthatthedefendantcommittedthecrimessought  tobejoined.`   #  19      ׀SeealsoYoungv.State,566S.W.2d895,898(Tenn.Crim.App.  1978)(statingthatthe testisnotwhethertherewasevidencethatadefendant  committedbothcrimes,butwhethertherewasauniquemethodusedincommitting d\ thecrimes).Assuch,totheextentthatthetrialcourtreliedonthisevidencetofinda 0 ( distinctivedesign,iterredindoingso. !  Weholdthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninrefusingtoseverthefour %" armedrobberies.Thetrialcourtseemstohaveallowedconsolidationoftheoffenses `'X $  basedonlyuponthesimilaritiesintheoffenseswithoutregardtothepresenceofa ,)$"& distinctanduniquemodusoperandi.  #  20      ׀Therefore,byapplyinganincorrectlegal   standard,thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninrefusingtosevertheseoffenses.     HARMLESSERROR  l d    Havingfoundthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninrefusingtoseverthe   fourarmedrobberiesfortrial,wemustnowdeterminewhetherthatabuseofdiscretion   isreversibleerror.TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure52statesthatnoconviction   istobereversedonappeal exceptforerrorswhichaffirmativelyappeartohave tl affectedtheresultofthetrialonitsmerits.SeealsoTenn.R.App.P.36(b).After @8 reviewingtherecordasawhole,weareunabletoconcludeonthefactsofthiscase   thattheerrorwasharmless.   The linebetweenharmlessandprejudicialerrorisindirectproportiontothe ph degreeofthemarginbywhichtheproofexceedsthestandardrequiredtoconvict, < 4 beyondareasonabledoubt.Delkv.State,590S.W.2d435,442(Tenn.1979).At " trial,theStatepresentedsixwitnesseswhotestifiedtosubstantiallythesamedetails #  ondirectexamination.Eachwitnesstestifiedthatapersonmatchingthedefendants %" height,weight,andhaircolorrobbedtheirstorewearinganarmyjacketandblackski l'd $ mask.ThejuryfoundtheappellantnotguiltyoftheNovember29offense,butit 8)0"& convictedtheappellantoftheremainingcounts. +#(  AlthoughtheCourtofCriminalAppealsheldthattheevidencewassufficientto .', sustaintheappellantsconviction,theevidenceagainsthimwasclearlynot h0`).  overwhelming.Forexample,mostoftheeyewitnessescouldnotpositivelyidentify 42,+0 theappellantastheoffender,  #  21      ׀andmuchofthetrialtestimonywasinconsistentwith   statementsgivenimmediatelyaftertherobbery.   #  22      ׀Itisclearthatthecredibilityofthe  eachwitnesswasbolsteredbythetestimonyofotherwitnessesconcerningsimilar   offenses.Thefailuretoseverunderthesecircumstancesinvitedthejurytoinferthe l d appellantsguiltfromaperceivedpropensitytocommitarmedrobbery.Accordingly, 80 weholdthattheerroneousfailuretosevertheoffensesaffirmativelyappearstohave   affectedtheverdictsofconvictionandthatnewtrialsarerequiredtoensurethatthese   verdictswerenottheresultofunfairprejudice.      CONCLUSION  @8    Tosummarize,weholdthatatrialcourtsdecisiontodenyaseveranceof  offensesistobereviewedforanabuseofdiscretion.Wealsoholdthatthetrialcourt  inthiscaseabuseditsdiscretionindenyingtheappellantsmotiontoseverbecause |t therobberiesdidnotshareadistinctoruniquemodusoperandi.Further,thisabuse  ofdiscretionaffirmativelyappearstohaveaffectedtheoutcomeofthetrial.  Therefore,X| XXXLtheappellantsconvictionsandsentencesarevacated,andthiscaseis   remandedtothetrialcourtfornewtrialsconsistentwiththisopinion.  |  CostsareassessedtotheStateofTennessee. D<    0       0      8     ___________________________    0      8     WilliamM.Barker,Justice  CONCUR:  Anderson,C.J.,  Drowota,Birch,J.J.#XLX XX|m#  Byers,S.J.