Title: Bacon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 369, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEVEARL BACON,  
 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 369, 2001 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
§ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
§ 
in and for New Castle County 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 7, 2002 
Decided:   July 1, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of July, 2002, on consideration of the briefs and arguments of the 
parties, it appears to the Court that: 
1) Devearl Bacon was convicted, following a jury trial, of carjacking and multiple 
counts of robbery first degree, possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, 
wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, aggravated menacing, and 
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.  He appeals from one 
robbery conviction, arguing that the Superior Court erred in allowing that count of the 
indictment to be amended at the beginning of trial. 
 
 
2 
2) Bacon was charged with 36 counts of robbery and related offenses arising out 
of a two-day crime spree.  The indictment at issue originally charged that Bacon  
threatened “the immediate use of force upon Roshelle Conkey with intent to compel 
the said person to deliver up property consisting of car keys and a car....”  The State 
moved to amend the indictment to substitute “United States currency” for “car keys 
and a car.”  The Superior Court granted the State’s motion over Bacon’s objection. 
3)   It is settled in Delaware that indictments may be amended as to matters of 
form, as long as “no new, additional, or different charge is made thereby and the 
accused will not suffer prejudice to substantial rights.”1 The elements of the crime of 
robbery are, in relevant part: (1) the use or threatened immediate use of force on a 
person; (2) while committing the crime of theft; (3) in order to overcome the person’s 
resistance to the taking of the property.2   The identity of the stolen property is not 
material to the offense of robbery.  Thus, an amendment that changes the property 
from “car keys and a car” to “United States currency” does not create a new, additional 
or different charge.3  Since the amendment was permissible as being one of form only, 
                                                 
1Robinson v. State, 600 A.2d 356, 359 (Del. 1991). 
2 11 Del. C. §831. 
3 Roberts v. State, 1998 WL 231269 (Del. Supr.). 
 
 
3 
and since Bacon makes no claim of prejudice, the trial court’s decision granting the 
motion to amend must be upheld. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice