Opinion ID: 2063677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Defects in the Information

Text: Defendant predicates error on the trial court's refusal to dismiss the charges due to an alleged defect in the original charging information and upon alleged improprieties involving the State's subsequently amended information. In addition to the perjury count, the original information charged two counts of making a forged instrument and two counts of uttering a forged instrument. Attached to the information were photostatic copies of the two checks involved: check # 125 drawn on the First National Bank of Martinsville, and check # 173 drawn on the Bank One of Columbus. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-34-1-4(a)(11) because the information 1) failed to allege a defrauded party, and 2) did not specifically designate which counts were based on the making and uttering of which instrument. At a hearing on defendant's motion, the State dismissed the two counts of making a forged instrument and moved to amend the information with respect to the remaining counts. Without ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss, the court granted the State's motion over the defendant's objection. It is well settled that a charging instrument must sufficiently apprise the defendant of the nature of the charges against him so that he may anticipate the proof and prepare a defense in advance of trial. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 702; Griffin v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 160, ovr'ld in part on other grounds, Bailey v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 1260. We find the original information in this case adequately complied with this requirement and sufficiently complied with Ind. Code § 35-34-1-2. The failure of the State in this case to specifically name the defrauded parties was not a defect because the identity of the parties is clearly ascertainable in the attached instruments. It is the allegation and proof that the defendant had the intent to defraud which is crucial to the conviction. Darnell v. State (1972), 257 Ind. 613, 277 N.E.2d 366; Ralston v. State (1980), Ind. App., 412 N.E.2d 239. Moreover, the failure of the State to specifically designate which counts were predicated on which instrument was an immaterial defect properly corrected by way of an amended information filed pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5, which permits the State to correct any defect, imperfection or omission in form which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. [1] The amended information was filed on July 19, 1984, approximately one month before trial. Defendant neither sought a continuance to accord himself more time to prepare his defense, nor has he shown undue prejudice as a result of the trial court's ruling. We turn next to the defects allegedly contained in the amended information. In addition to the perjury charge, the amended information charged the defendant with two counts of uttering a forged instrument: Count I referred to Attached check # 125 and Count II referred to Attached check # 173. However, copies of the checks were not attached to the amended information. Defendant filed another motion to dismiss alleging the amended information failed to comport with due process requirements. The motion was overruled. Defendant now asserts he was not sufficiently advised of the nature of the charges because he was unable to discern from the charging instrument what check # 125 and check # 173 referred to. In support of his argument, he cites Griffin, supra . Griffin involved a prosecution for receiving stolen property. The original information contained a description of the stolen property and names of the owners of the stolen goods. The amended information, however, alleged only that defendant knowingly received stolen property, and there was no description of the property at all or any indication as to the identities of the rightful owners. This Court viewed the inadequacy of the amended information as fundamental error requiring reversal. We find the amended information in the instant case to be distinguishable. Indiana Code § 35-34-1-14 provides: In any indictment or information, an averment substantially in compliance with the provisions of this section shall be sufficient.       (c) It is sufficient to describe a written instrument by any name or designation by which it is usually known or to aver generally the contents of such instrument. Here each count specifically referred to the check numbers which corresponded to the copies attached to the original information. The amended information was filed to cure specifically the defect in the original information that defendant complained of, that is, to clarify which forged check was the predicate for which offense. That it accomplished this purpose is evident from defendant's memorandum accompanying his motion to dismiss where he acknowledged his assumption that the references in the amended charges related to the copied checks attached to the original information. We would be strained to conclude the amended information did not sufficiently notify the defendant of the nature and character of the charges against him. We hold that the amended information was adequate. Defendant also contends the information failed to allege all elements of the crime of forgery, and that the trial court erred in giving its final instruction # 7, which set forth the elements the State was required to prove in order to convict the defendant of forgery. A person who, with intent to defraud, makes or utters a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another person commits forgery. Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2. Both forgery counts in the information alleged that the defendant, with intent to defraud, uttered a written instrument ... in such a manner that it purports to have been made by another person, in violation of I.C. 35-4-5-2. The instruction read, in relevant part: In order for you to convict the defendant of the crime of Forgery, the State must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements: The defendant with intent to defraud, uttered a written instrument purporting to have been made by another person, ... . Defendant argues lack of legal authority is an essential element of the crime. We disagree. The information and instruction properly set forth the elements of forgery.