fine. As to those assignments, we affirm. We reject defendant’s remaining two assignments of error without published discussion. Defendant was charged in a single indictment with one count of first-degree sodomy, three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and three counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse. One week before trial, he demurred to the indictment on the ground that the sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse counts—which were based on his alleged abuse of a single victim—and the encouraging child sexual abuse counts—which were based on his alleged duplication of child pornography—were not properly joined in the indictment under ORS 132.560. See State v. Poston, 277 Or App 137, 144-45, 370 P3d 904 (2016), adh’d to on recons, 285 Or App 750, 399 P3d 488 (2017) (<HOLDING>). The trial court denied the demurrer both on
holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court holding that a removal notice must be filed within a reasonable time after fraudulent joinder becomes evident holding that assertions of consent of nonjoined defendants contained in a notice of removal does not constitute proper joinder for removal purposes holding that the right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy holding that the basis for joinder of crimes must be alleged in the charging instrument by alleging the basis for joinder in the language of the joinder statute or by alleging facts sufficient to establish compliance with the joinder statute