The majority concludes the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing the motion to require election of charges upon which the State intended to proceed. While I agree the motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. I conclude the failure to require election under the circumstances of this case amounted to an abuse of that discretion.
Initially, it must be noted Anderson stipulated his prior DUI and DUS convictions to establish jurisdiction in the General Sessions Court regarding the third offense DUI and DUS charges. Prior to S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-980 (1991), the State was entitled to introduce a defendant’s prior convictions for these offenses in order to establish jurisdiction. See State v. Pearson, 223 S.C. 377, 76 S.E. (2d) 151 (1953). Recognizing the prejudice to the defendant, the legislature enacted 1962 Code § 46-349, now § 56-5-2980, which reads in applicable part, as follows:
[T]he accused may stipulate with the solicitor that the charge constitutes a second or further offense, in which event the indictment shall not contain allegations of prior *401offenses, nor shall evidence of such prior offenses be introduced.
In this case, the State attempted to circumvent the statute by refusing to “stipulate” to this jurisdictional foundation, but the statute is clear in giving that option to the defendant, not the State. To hold otherwise would render this portion of the statute meaningless, since the State’s interest would rarely, if ever, be served by so agreeing.
The State does not assert these prior convictions would have been admissible as past crimes of moral turpitude for impeachment. See State v. Hall, 306 S.C. 293, 4411 S.E. (2d) 441 (Ct. App. 1991) (DUI is not a crime of moral turpitude for impeachment purposes). Nor do they argue admissibility under State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923). Thus, evidence of the prior convictions for driving under the influence and driving under suspension was not admissible, absent the charge for violating the habitual offender law.
I agree with the majority that the decision turns on an analysis of the fourth requirement necessary to try separate charges in a single trial, as set forth in City of Greenville v. Chapman, 210 S.C. 157, 41 S.E. (2d) 865 (1947) (“no real right of the defendant will be jeopardized”). Contrary to the majority, I conclude the substantial right of the defendant to a fair and impartial trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 14, has been compromised by the denial of the motion.
Though our Supreme Court allowed the joint trial of multiple misdemeanor charges in City of Greenville, in so holding the court made the following observation:
We think the interest of the public and the right of the defendant will be better subserved in general by permitting as matter of law a single trial under such conditions, leaving it to the sound discretion of the trial court to order separate trials when the rights of either the commonwealth or of the defendant appear to require it.
Circumstances might arise which would render a uniting of several counts unjust to the defendant. As the old cases put it, “By the multiplication of distinct charges, he prisoner may be confounded in his defense, or prejudiced *402in his challenges, or the attention of the jury may be distracted.” But the record does not disclose that appellant was prejudiced in any of these respects (citation omitted). Whenever such a situation arises, the trial court will protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial by requiring an election.
Id. at 162, 41 S.E. (2d) at 867.
The court recognized that circumstances may require severance (or the requirement of election by the solicitor), in order to prevent prejudice. In more modern terms, the analysis involves a weighing of the State’s interest in judicial economy against the possible prejudice to the defendant.
To consider the first prong of the inquiry, we must look at the practical effect upon judicial economy of separately trying the offenses. Even a cursory inspection of the burden upon the State reveals the relatively minor inconvenience to witnesses and judicial resources. The pertinent provisions of the Act read as follows:
Section 56-1-1020. An habitual offender shall mean any person whose record as maintained by the Department of Public Safety shows that he has accumulated the convictions for separate and distinct offenses described in subsections (a), (b) and (c) committed during a three-year period; provided, that where more'than one included offense shall be committed within a one-day period such multiple offenses shall be treated for the purposes of this article as one offense:
(2) Operating or attempting to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or drugs;
(4) Driving a motor vehicle while his license, permit, or privilege to drive a motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked, except a conviction for driving under suspension for failure to file proof of financial responsibility;
Section 56-1-1100. It is unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle in this State while the decision of the Department of Public Safety prohibiting the operation remains in effect. A person found to be an habitual offender under the provisions of this article, who subsequently is *403convicted of operating a motor vehicle in this State while the decision of the Department of Public Safety prohibiting the operation is in effect, is guilty of a misdemeanor [now felony] and must be imprisoned not more than five years.
A violation of this provision has but two elements: (1) the offender was driving on the public highways of South Carolina, and (2) the offender has been declared an habitual offender under the terms of the statute. See State v. Goodman, 304 S.C. 170, 403 S.E. (2d) 320 (Ct. App. 1991). Anderson does not dispute driving the vehicle. The offender observed him operating it. Thus, proof of the first element would take no more than a few minutes. Proof of the second element is established through documented evidence of the suspension as an habitual offender, which contains the driving record. This element of proof would, likewise, take but a few minutes. Under the circumstances of this case, the conclusion is inescapable that the trial of the habitual offender charge would consume very little time or judicial resources.
By contrast, the prejudicial effect of the admission of the prior DUI and DUS convictions in the trial on those offenses is obvious. In the seminal case of State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 417, 118 S.E. 803, 807, our court emphasized the evidence of other crimes must be strictly scrutinized before its admission because “the inevitable tendency of such evidence is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors.” If there is any doubt as to the connection between the acts, the accused is to be given the benefit of the doubt and the evidence should not be admitted. State v. Wilson, 274 S.C. 635, 266 S.E. (2d) 426 (1980).
The inference of guilt is a powerful thought difficult to resist even for the fairest of jurors, no matter the court’s instructions. As our court recognized in Lyle:
Proof that a defendant has been guilty of another crime equally heinous prompts to a ready acceptance of and belief in the prosecution’s theory that he is guilty of the crime charged. Its effect is to predispose the mind of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty, and thus effectually .to strip him of the presumption of innocence.
*404125 S.C. at 416, 118 S.E. at 807.
The danger of prejudice is heightened where, as here, the prior offenses are “strikingly similar” to the charges being litigated. State v. Gore, 283 S.C. 118, 121, 322 S.E. (2d) 12, 13 (1984). This is especially so when the offense implicates the excessive consumption of addictive substances such as alcohol and drugs. There are few forms of aberrant behavior more recognized in society as repetitive in their nature than the misuse of alcohol and drugs. The risk of undue prejudice is so great that the legislature specifically prevented the introduction of this same evidence in § 56-5-2980.
The limiting instruction given by the trial judge was of no help, because it incorrectly allowed the jury to consider the prior DUI and DUS convictions for purposes of impeachment, when they were not admissible for that reason. With that instruction, the error was compounded, not alleviated. Consequently, the prejudice from a denial of the motion to severally try the charges is apparent, whereas the judicial economy served by a denial of severance is virtually non-existent. Under these circumstances, the denial of the motion was arbitrary, and an abuse of discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse.