Opinion ID: 2132673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Finding of Guilt.

Text: Clarence's final challenge focuses on the nature of the district court's conclusion that he was guilty of child endangerment. He argues that he was ultimately found guilty of child endangerment causing skeletal injury rather than child endangerment causing serious injury, the charge stated in the trial information filed in his case. See Iowa Code § 726.6A. The difference in these charges, although semantically minor, signals major differences in the injury inflicted and the defense that must be mounted on behalf of a defendant charged under either of the theories. Recognizing the inherent injustice of forcing a defendant to defend against a crime with which he has not been charged, we have observed, [w]hen a crime may be committed in different ways, and the State specifies one way, the offense must be proved to have been committed in the way charged. State v. Willet, 305 N.W.2d 454, 457 (Iowa 1981); see also State v. Pexa, 574 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Iowa 1998); State v. Grice, 515 N.W.2d 20, 22-23 (Iowa 1994); State v. Kirby, 391 N.W.2d 243, 244-45 (Iowa 1986). Accordingly, if there is a variance between the crime charged and the proof at trial, we will require a new trial if a substantial right of the defendant is prejudiced. Willet, 305 N.W.2d at 457. However, [a] variance between the information and the proof is prejudicial only if the defendant is not fairly notified of the charges against him so that he may prepare to defend. Id. The State concedes that Clarence was found guilty under the skeletal injury alternative instead of the serious bodily injury alternative under which he was charged in the trial information. However, the State responds to Clarence's claim the variance was prejudicial by first arguing that he failed to preserve this issue for review. In the alternative, the State argues that the variance between charge and conviction simply was not prejudicial because Clarence had notice that the State was proceeding with both endangerment alternatives and ultimately defended against both alternatives. The State points to Clarence's prior trial in this case, arguing the charges he faced at that stage of the case warned him that the skeletal injury would again be a consideration in the new trial. The minutes of testimony included with the trial information also may have notified Clarence that Frankie's skeletal injury would be an issue in the new trial, especially because it would likely be a key part of Frankie's medical providers' testimony. See Grice, 515 N.W.2d at 23; Kirby, 391 N.W.2d at 245. Yet, no matter how Clarence was notified that the skeletal injury alternative was at issue, an examination of the record reveals that the State produced substantial evidence supporting the skeletal injury alternative, and more importantly, Clarence anticipated and defended against the alternative at nearly every stage of his trial. Moreover, despite his protestations on appeal that the alternative was not charged, Clarence failed to challenge the trial information at any point during his trial while otherwise defending against the alternative. Given the State's presentation of substantial evidence supporting the alternative and Clarence's defense against the charge, we can only conclude that Clarence had notice that the alternative was in play. If he hoped to avoid its consideration by the district court a timely objection to the trial information during trial would have been appropriate. Even assuming that this challenge was properly preserved  and we note several deficiencies in its preservation, including the absence of such an objection  Clarence's argument on this issue is repudiated by an examination of the record. Clarence cannot now claim his trial was corrupted by a faulty trial information given he defended against the alternative and otherwise suffered no prejudice from the flawed information.