Opinion ID: 2052508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing the state to amend the information 0 the first day of trial with respect to the charges against the defendant?

Text: On the day trial was scheduled to open, and before voir dire commenced, State informed the court that it would be submitting an amended information which separated Count IV of the original information into three separate counts. Donald strenuously objected and the court delayed its ruling until the submission of the amended information and a more complete record could be made. The voir dire proceeded through the morning. At the commencement of the afternoon session, an in-camera hearing was held with regard to the amendment. Count IV of the original information charged Donald with murder in the first degree in that he did, without authority of law and with a premeditated design, affect the death of Daniel Rough Surface or caused said death when engaged in the perpetration of a rape and/or robbery. The amended information charged three separate counts: premeditated murder, felony murderrape, and felony murderrobbery. The trial court granted the motion to amend upon the grounds that no new offenses were alleged and the amendment merely stated more clearly that which was originally charged. The trial court also noted that State had indicated they would move for amendment prior to commencement of trial and that the voir dire had begun merely for the purpose of expediency. On appeal, Donald urges that he was substantially prejudiced because the trial had commenced and that new charges were added. SDCL 23A-6-19 (Rule 7(e)) [1] prescribes the standards for amendment of an information before and during trial. In this case, the trial court is correct in its ruling that the amendment may be considered before or during trial. Since the trial court found that the amendment did not charge any new offense, with which we agree, no preliminary hearing was necessary. Considering that no new offense was charged, we cannot see where Donald was prejudiced. Donald does not point to any actual prejudice nor did he make any motion for continuance when the amendment was allowed.