Opinion ID: 72458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Variance – Clark

Text: Though labeled a sufficiency of the evidence claim, Watson’s first alleged error is actually a material, or fatal, variance claim. Specifically, Watson points to the language in the indictment stating that she “did interfere with the performance of the duties of airport employees who had security duties within the airport, namely security screening personnel under the supervision of the [TSA].” (emphasis added). The Government does not contend that it proved either that Clark was serving as a screening officer or that she was working under the supervision of the TSA. “To prevail on a material variance claim, [Watson] must prove (1) a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, and (2) that the variance affected [her] substantial rights.” United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849, 858 (5th Cir. 1997). Whether the Government’s failure to prove Clark was a screening officer under the supervision of the TSA constituted a variance is debatable. See United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 2005) (“A variance arises when the proof at trial depicts a scenario that differs materially from the scenario charged in the indictment but does not modify an essential element of the charged offense.”) Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that the 4 Case: 09-60099 Document: 00511065331 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 No. 09-60099 “namely” clause created a variance, Watson has failed to demonstrate the materiality of that variance. “A variance is material if it prejudices the defendant’s ‘substantial rights,’ either by surprising the defendant at trial or by placing the defendant at risk of double jeopardy.” United States v. Robinson, 974 F.2d 575, 578 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 (1935)). Conversely, “a variance is immaterial if it does not impair the defendant’s ability to defend himself through failing to identify the nature of the charge.” Id. (quotation omitted).1 Here, the indictment clearly identified the conduct at issue so as to avoid any undue prejudice from the surplus “namely” clause. In fact, the indictment specifically referenced Watson’s assault on Clark when it stated she interfered by “kicking a law enforcement officer on the scene to assist the [TSA] . . . .” Watson cannot reasonably assert that the minor variance she claims was created by the “namely” clause caused her to be surprised at trial as to the nature of the charge against her or as to the specific conduct giving rise to that charge. Accordingly, Watson is not entitled to relief on her claims regarding the assault on Clark.2