Opinion ID: 2033698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Amendment of the Charging Information

Text: The defendant's final allegation of error is that the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to amend counts II and III of the indictment so that they alleged various alternative acts as a basis for the conspiracy convictions. He contends that the specification of alleged overt acts, connected by the conjunction or, made it possible for different individual jurors to reach a guilty verdict upon different bases, thus making it impossible to determine whether the jury returned a unanimous verdict. Citing Hopper v. State, 475 N.E.2d 20 (Ind.1985), and other authorities, the State counters that it may charge a defendant with committing multiple acts. Clearly, the State may allege multiple acts in one count of an offense. See Ind.Trial Rule 8(E)(2). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has never suggested that in returning general verdicts ... jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than... indictments [are] required to specify one [actus reus] alone. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631-33, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2497, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (Souter, J., writing for a plurality). In criminal cases, as in all litigation, different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line. Id. The State merely presented the jury with alternative ways to find the defendant guilty as to one element. We find no error on this issue.