Do multiple counts in one indictment each count as separate criminal charges?

1. How advocates and statutes frame the basic claim — “Counts as separate charges”

Statutory texts and practitioner guides present a clear baseline: an indictment may contain multiple counts and each count may be treated as a separate indictment, which means each count is capable of producing an independent verdict and conviction ^[1]. Legal commentary repeats this point for U.S. practice as well: counts are separate charges and prosecutors use multiple counts to preserve alternative theories or additional convictions if proof supports them ^{[4] [5]}. The practical consequence is that the dismissal, reversal, or acquittal of one count does not automatically dispose of other counts unless statutory merger or allied-offense doctrines require consolidation at sentencing ^{[6] [3]}. This framing is present across the provided Canadian and U.S. materials and is presented as the default procedural rule.

2. Where judges exercise control — joinder and the court’s discretion to sever

All sources emphasize that judicial discretion mediates the separate-charge principle: courts may join counts for efficiency but also sever them if joinder prejudices the accused or impairs truth-finding ^{[2] [7]}. Canadian Criminal Code provisions expressly permit multiple counts to be joined but allow severance in the interests of justice, and New York procedural law likewise authorizes separate trials where evidence imbalance or testimonial issues justify it ^{[1] [7]}. The case law cited indicates a presumption against severance, meaning courts weigh systemic interests—avoiding duplicative trials and preventing inconsistent verdicts—against potential unfairness to defendants ^[2]. Severance practice therefore creates substantive variability: identical indictments can be tried differently depending on judicial assessment of prejudice, evidence overlap, and public interest.

3. When a single count can mask multiple acts — duplicitous counts and allied-offense rules

Sources underline an important limitation: a count must charge one offense; charging multiple, distinct offenses in a single count creates a duplicitous indictment that courts may cure by forcing election or dismissing the count ^{[4] [3]}. Conversely, multiple acts can sometimes be charged as one offense when courts treat them as a continuing crime or when statutory language contemplates multiple means of committing the same offense ^{[3] [4]}. States like Ohio and jurisdictions following allied-offense doctrines limit multiple convictions for conduct that logically constitutes a single criminal act, especially at sentencing, even if multiple counts were initially charged ^[6]. This tension explains why counts may be separate in name but collapse in sentencing or appellate review.

4. Cross-jurisdictional patterns — U.S. and Canadian differences that matter in practice

Canadian statutory permission to treat each count as a separate indictment is explicit and mirrored by prosecutorial practice; severance principles and considerations of prejudice are similarly articulated in Canadian guidance ^{[1] [2]}. U.S. federal and state materials reiterate the separate-count baseline but stress technical doctrines—duplication, multiplicity, and merger—that vary by jurisdiction and can alter outcomes ^{[4] [8]}. New York’s CPL and case law demonstrate how a formal multiplicity challenge can succeed or fail depending on whether the facts represent a continuing offense versus discrete acts ^{[7] [3]}. The practical divergence is procedural rather than doctrinal: both systems recognize counts as separable charges, but local doctrines determine whether they lead to multiple convictions or are treated as one at sentencing.

5. The stakes for defendants and prosecutors — strategy, evidence, and sentencing consequences

Because each count is independently chargeable, prosecutors use multiple counts to preserve alternative theories and maximize conviction chances; defendants face risk of cumulative sentences if counts are treated separately ^{[5] [6]}. Courts can protect defendants through severance or by rejecting duplicitous counts, but those remedies require timely objection and judicial willingness to order relief ^{[2] [8]}. Sentencing outcomes hinge on allied-offense or merger doctrines: even with multiple convictions, sentencing courts may consolidate punishment where the conduct is legally or factually a single offense ^{[6] [3]}. The procedural posture at trial—joinder decisions, jury instructions, and election orders—frequently determines whether separate counts translate into separate punishments.

6. Bottom line — what to expect and where disputes usually arise

Expect that multiple counts in a single indictment will be treated as separate charges by default; expect litigation over whether counts should be tried together, whether counts are duplicitous, and whether separate convictions should merge at sentencing ^{[1] [4] [3]}. Disputes center on evidence overlap, prejudice to the accused, statutory language, and allied-offense doctrines, with jurisdiction-specific case law determining outcomes. For precise results in any case, review the controlling statute and relevant appellate authority in the applicable jurisdiction and raise timely severance or multiplicity challenges to preserve appellate review ^{[2] [8]}.