Opinion ID: 2195115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Improper Amendment of Indictment

Text: Cruz alleges that the trial court's instruction on AAWA improperly amended the indictment; thus, violating his Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on charges returned by a grand jury. The argument is without merit. Under the statute, an individual commits AAWA if he either: (1) knowingly or purposely causes serious bodily injury to another person; or (2) under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, . . . knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious bodily injury to another person, and thereby causes serious bodily injury. D.C.Code § 22-404.01 (2001). Cruz's indictment states that he knowingly and purposefully cause[d] serious bodily injury to the victims. However, the trial court's jury instructions to the jury also included the second means of committing aggravated assault, that is, the defendant manifested extreme indifference to human life by knowingly engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of serious bodily injury. Since Cruz did not object to the instruction at the trial level, we review for plain error. Super. Ct.Crim. R. 30 (No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.); see also Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818, 828 (D.C.2006) (en banc). Accordingly, reversal is warranted `only in exceptional circumstances' where a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Gordon v. United States, 783 A.2d 575, 581 (D.C.2001) (quoting Robinson v. United States, 649 A.2d 584, 586 (D.C.1994)). While the indictment failed to state both subsections of the aggravated assault statute, it did include a citation that encompassed both subsections; thus, Cruz had notice that he would be required to defend against both prongs. We find that Cruz has failed to show that a miscarriage of justice occurred, in light of the notice he received through the citation to the aggravated assault statute included in the indictment. See Smith v. United States, 801 A.2d 958, 962 (D.C.2002) (holding that there is no risk that fairness or integrity is affected where the indictment, although including only the language of the first subsection of the aggravated assault statute, also includes a citation that encompasses both subsections).