duplicate their performances. Jasch v. State,

563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977); Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). The strongest case for ordering a joint trial is where the evidence to support the charges against the several defendants is vir- tually identical. Jasch v. State, 563 P.2d 1327, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 247 (Wyo. 1977). There is always possibility of prejudice resulting from joinder of similar offenses and care must be taken at the initial stage of the proceedings to guard against such a possi- bility. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). And fact establishing lack of prejudice. — The fact that the evidence presented at a joint trial could be separately introduced at trials for the separate offenses establishes the lack of prejudice. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). Defendant was not prejudiced by joinder of trials of three criminal actions against him for child sexual abuse where testimony concerning other victims would have been admissible in separate trials under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence to show motive or a common scheme or plan and defendant failed to show jury was confused by joinder of the charges. Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1997 Wyo. LEXIS 113 (Wyo. 1997). And consideration in guarding against prejudice. — In guarding against the preju- dice resulting from a joinder of similar offenses, one of the prime considerations is whether or not evidence relating to the similar offenses charged would be admissible in the separate trial of each offense. Tabor v. State, 616 P.2d 1282, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 306 (Wyo. 1980). No prejudice where same information and same evidence. — There was no preju- dice in trying two counts of burglary jointly where the charges were joined in the same information and the evidence would have been the same had the charges been tried separately. Bishop v. State, 684 P.2d 799 (Wyo. 1984). Consolidation proper where separate crimes constitute single transaction or re- lated acts. — The fact that the defendants were charged with and convicted of two sepa- rate crimes did not foreclose consolidation in an instance in which the crimes essentially consti- tuted a single transaction or involved a related series of acts. Seeley v. State, 715 P.2d 232, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 503 (Wyo. 1986). Facts under which joinder proper. — See Lee v. State, 653 P.2d 1388, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 409 (Wyo. 1982). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a joint trial of a husband and wife charged in separate informations with partici- pating in the same acts or series of acts consti- tuting aggravated robbery. Amin v. State, 695 P.2d 1021, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 449 (Wyo. 1985). Joinder of murder and attempted murder charges was proper, where evidence would have been admissible at a separate trial on each offense; evidence of defendant’s attempted mur- der of police officers would have been admis- sible as circumstantial evidence to prove his involvement in murder earlier reported to offi- cers, and evidence of murder would have been admissible to prove motive in attempted mur- der of officers. Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 103 (Wyo. 1999).