State, 249 S.C. 14, 36, 152 S.E.2d 235, 246 (1967) (stating “[t]he two offenses were of the same general nature, involving connected transactions closely related in time, place and character; and the trial judge had power, in his discretion, to order them tried together over objection by the defendant in the absence of a showing that the latter’s substantive rights would have been thereby prejudiced.”). Offenses are considered to be of the same general nature where they are interconnected. Jones, 325 S.C. at 315, 479 S.E.2d at 519. Conversely, offenses which are of the same nature, but which do not arise out of a single chain of circumstances and are not provable by the same evidence may not properly be tried together. See, e.g., State v. Middleton, 288 S.C. 21, 339 S.E.2d 692 (1986) (<HOLDING>); State v. Tate, 286 S.C. 462, 334 S.E.2d 289
holding that the jury found the ajppellant not guilty of all charges in one case and not guilty of three out of four charges in a second case demonstrating the jury considered each case and each charge separately and did not cumulate the evidence holding that assault and kidnapping charges do not merge as they are not the same act for purposes of blockburger  and as each required proof of an element the other did not holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding although prison escapee committed two murders within a few miles of each other and attempted an armed robbery the trial judge erred in consolidating the charges for one trial where the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances and they required different evidence