for joinder in all cases, but grant either the defense or prosecution “the absolute right to sever unrelated cases.” Ramos, 149 N.H. at 127-28. We held that: Whenever two or more unrelated offenses have been joined for trial, the prosecuting attorney or the defendant shall have a right to [sever] them. “Unrelated” offenses are those that are not “related.” “Related” offenses are those that are based upon the same conduct, upon a single criminal episode, or upon a common plan. Id. at 128 (citations omitted). The State concedes that if our ruling in Ramos governs the defendant’s rights to severance, the cases should have been severed for trial. Additionally, the State concedes that if Ramos applies to this case, it cannot prove “harmless error.” See State v. Mason, 150 N.H. 53, 62 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The State does not contend that the charges
holding that misjoinder of criminal offenses is subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding improper vouching is subject to harmless error analysis holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis