(concurring separately):
I agree with the result reached by the majority. I write separately to express my concern about the potential for abuse in the joint prosecution of defendants similarly situated to these.
*562The absence of evidence that Hughes committed Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill (ABIK)8 supports an inference that the prosecution’s decision to try Hughes and Shaw jointly was a stratagem used only to prejudice Hughes by presenting evidence of Nesmith’s injuries before the jury. Such evidence was irrelevant to the issue of Hughes’s guilt on the pointing and presenting a firearm charge, and would not have been admitted had Hughes been tried separately on that charge. I would strongly discourage the employment of such ploys by the prosecution.
Notwithstanding the above, Hughes has failed to meet his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had separate trials been conducted, and therefore, is not entitled to post-conviction relief.9
. Whether this was apparent to the prosecution prior to trial or whether it only became apparent at the close of the state’s case is unclear. Given the total lack of evidence of ABIK against Hughes, the circumstances are strongly suspect.
. I am less convinced that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request that the charges against Hughes be severed and separate trials had on the ABIK and pointing and presenting a firearm charges. Since that issue is not before the Court, it need not be addressed.