Opinion ID: 886181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion by accepting an Amended Complaint on the day of trial?

Text: ¶ 10 We review a district court's decision to permit an amendment to a criminal complaint or information for abuse of discretion. State v. Allen (1996), 278 Mont. 326, 330, 925 P.2d 470, 472 (citing State v. Matson (1987), 227 Mont. 36, 42, 736 P.2d 971, 975). An information must reasonably apprise the accused of the charges against him, so that he may have the opportunity to prepare and present his defense. Allen, 278 Mont. at 330, 925 P.2d at 472 ( citing Matson, 227 Mont. at 42, 736 P.2d at 975). ¶ 11 Section 46-11-205, MCA, provides for an amendment to a criminal information or complaint, as follows: (1) The court may allow an information to be amended in matters of substance at any time, but not less than 5 days before trial, provided that a motion is filed in a timely manner, states the nature of the proposed amendment, and is accompanied by an affidavit stating facts that show the existence of probable cause to support the charge as amended. A copy of the proposed amended information must be included with the motion to amend the information. (2) If the court grants leave to amend the information, the defendant must be arraigned on the amended information without unreasonable delay and must be given a reasonable period of time to prepare for trial on the amended information. (3) The court may permit an information to be amended as to form at any time before a verdict or finding is issued if no additional or different offense is charged and if the substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced. The statute allows alteration to the form of a complaint any time prior to verdict, § 46-11-205(3), MCA, but unequivocally prohibits a court from accepting a substantive amendment within five days of the trial. Section 46-11-205(1), MCA. An amendment is one of form when the same crime is charged, the elements of the crime and the proof required remain the same and the defendant is informed of the charges against him. State v. Sor-Lokken (1991), 247 Mont. 343, 349, 805 P.2d 1367, 1371. ¶ 12 Kennedy contends that the Amended Complaint presented substantive changes that expanded the charges against him by altering the statutory citation for the offense of stalking and alleging five specific incidents of stalking that were not included in the original Complaint. He argues that the original Complaint and Notice to Appear charged one violation of subsection (b) of § 45-5-220(1), MCA. By citing the entire stalking statute, the Amended Complaint expanded the charges to encompasses following the stalked person under subsection (a) as well as harassing, threatening or intimidating under subsection (b). The pertinent part of § 45-5-220, MCA, reads: (1) A person commits the offense of stalking if the person purposely or knowingly causes another person substantial emotional distress or reasonable apprehension of bodily injury or death by repeatedly: (a) following the stalked person; or (b) harassing, threatening, or intimidating the stalked person, in person or by phone, by mail, or by other action, device, or method. Kennedy claims he was prejudiced by the District Court's acceptance of the Amended Complaint on the day of trial because he had no time to prepare his defense against the new allegations. ¶ 13 The State maintains that the Amended Complaint altered only the form of the original Complaint and the District Court was correct to accept the amendment at any time prior to the verdict. Additional allegations of stalking charged no new offense and merely recited repeated instances of the same offense, according to the State. Kennedy had ample notice to prepare a defense, the State argues, because the City had enumerated each act alleged in the amendment in its brief in response to Kennedy's double jeopardy motion filed four months before trial. ¶ 14 To differentiate amendments of form and substance, we examine whether an amendment to an information or complaint alters the nature of the offense, the essential elements of the crime, the proofs or the defenses. For example, in State v. Matson (1987), 227 Mont. 36, 43, 736 P.2d 971, 975, we held insertion of the word serious before bodily injury to describe the charge of aggravated assault amended the form, not the substance, of an information. Similarly, an amendment to correct a charge from possession of methamphetamine to possession of amphetamine constituted a change in the form of the dangerous drug, and not the substance of the charge. State v. Clark, 1998 MT 221, ¶ 52, 290 Mont. 479, ¶ 52, 964 P.2d 766, ¶ 52. By contrast, we held the essential elements of an aggravated assault characterized by serious bodily injury are substantively different from the elements of an aggravated assault stemming from a reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury by use of a weapon. State v. Brown (1976), 172 Mont. 41, 560 P.2d 533. By changing the statutory subsection under which the defendant was charged, the amendment charged a wholly new offense. Brown, 172 Mont. at 45, 560 P.2d at 535. Similarly, in State v. Hallam (1978), 175 Mont. 492, 500, 575 P.2d 55, 61, substitution of one subsection of the arson statute for another by amendment constituted a change of substance, altering the crime charged as well as the elements, proofs and defenses. ¶ 15 An amendment that substitutes one statutory subsection for another, as in Brown and Hallam, may charge a wholly new offense and require new proofs and defenses. The amendment in this case, rather than substituting one statutory subsection for another, cites to the entire stalking statute and thus still encompasses the specific criminal acts charged by the original Complaint without supplanting the offense of following for the offense of harassing, threatening or intimidating. While the more inclusive statutory citation, itself, is a formal amendment, the Amended Complaint also invoked § 45-1-205(7)(a), MCA, to link separate allegations of stalking as a continuous course of conduct, and effectively put Kennedy on notice that the City intended to prosecute criminal conduct dating back to 1997. We note that a charge under § 45-5-220, MCA, can be proven by evidence of stalking behavior defined by either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of the statute. Because the amendment alleged two explicit incidents of following the stalked person, in violation of § 45-5-220(1)(a), MCA, and three additional episodes of harassing, threatening or intimidating under § 45-5-220(1)(b), MCA, the State could prove the offense with proof of any combination of the acts alleged. Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Kennedy could be convicted of the offense of stalking without proof of the incident on October 5, 1999, which served as the basis for the original Complaint. ¶ 16 We conclude that the addition of several new episodes of stalking to the Amended Complaint, together with the allegation that all incidents formed a continuous course of conduct dating back over two years, constituted a change of substance that added new proofs to the State's burden and required Kennedy to prepare new defenses. Although the State argues that Kennedy had notice four months prior to trial that the prosecution intended to use the stalking incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint to prove the element of repeated criminal conduct, the court may not rely upon ancillary court filings to inform the defendant of the charges against him. While the Amended Complaint clarified the specific criminal charges against Kennedy prior to trial de novo in district court, the proposed amendment was not filed in a timely manner at least five days before trial. Moreover, the court did not follow the procedures for motioning and re-arraignment required by § 46-11-205, MCA. We hold the court abused its discretion by accepting the Amended Complaint on the morning of the trial. ¶ 17 Reversed and remanded. We concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., TERRY N. TRIEWEILER, PATRICIA COTTER, JIM REGNIER, JAMES C. NELSON and JIM RICE, JJ.