Opinion ID: 1676108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As aforesaid, Rush contends trial court erroneously permitted the State to file an amended and substituted information.

Text: In support thereof it is first urged the revised information permitted an infamous charge to be made without benefit of presentation before a grand jury. He supportively argues his Fifth Amendment rights were contemporaneously violated. This complaint should have been initially registered by demurrer, not by resistance to a motion for leave to file an amended and substituted information. See Code § 777.3. It may therefore be said defendant is here confronted with a waiver. See State v. Glenn, 234 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Iowa 1975). Be that as it may there is no merit in defendant's aforesaid grand jury related claim. As articulated in State v. Finnegan, 237 N.W.2d 459, 460 (Iowa 1976): The remaining assignment of error in two divisions raises a single issuethe use of a county attorney's information. Defendant argues he is constitutionally entitled to be charged and tried on indictment. He says prosecution by information violates his right to due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the federal constitution. This same complaint in various forms has been considered and rejected many times, both by this court and by others. See § 769.1, The Code; Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 545, 82 S.Ct. 955, 957-958, 8 L.Ed.2d 98, 104 (1962); Wessling v. Bennett, 410 F.2d 205, 207 (8th Cir. 1969); State v. Masters, 196 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Iowa 1972); State v. Abodeely, 179 N.W.2d 347, 355 (Iowa 1970). Cf. State v. Lass, 228 N.W.2d 758, 762, 763 (Iowa 1975). We turn now to defendant's second complaint regarding the substituted information, i.e., in addition to defending against actual delivery of marijuana he was prevented    from properly preparing for a defense as an aider and abettor, thus denying him a fair trial. Admittedly, an amendment cannot be permitted which in effect charges a different offense. See State v. Gowins, 211 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Iowa 1973), and citations. But this rule does not instantly obtain. Rather the situation is like that presented in State v. Guess, 223 N.W.2d 214 (Iowa 1974). There, as here, the accused was informed against for delivery of a controlled substance. The amended information averred, alternatively, aiding and abetting an unlawful delivery. In rejecting defendant's attack upon the information thus amended this court dispositively stated, 223 N.W.2d at 215-216: Section 688.1, The Code, provides, inter alia: `   all persons concerned in the commission of a public offense, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet its commission,    must hereafter be indicted, tried, and punished as principals.' We find no language in chapter 204, The Code, precluding the operation of this section. Thus the crime exists and the `aiding and abetting' language was mere surplusage. This assignment is without merit. See also State v. Garrett, 173 N.W.2d 87, 90 (Iowa 1969). It is parenthetically noted, Rush never requested a continuance in order to prepare his amendment-related defense. See Code § 773.47. Under these circumstances any alleged denial of defense preparation time was waived. Cf. State v. Sevcik, 239 N.W.2d 571 (Iowa 1976). Further discussion will serve no useful purpose. Defendant's first two-fold assignment is devoid of substance.