Opinion ID: 347528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the government's contention

Text: 604 On this point the Government contends that such evidence was admissible because the indictment charged that the offense was also committed by other means, and that the defendants were not surprised by this evidence. 14 It is obvious, however, that the judge's instruction improperly did allow the jury to convict under Count 2 on a charge that was not contained in the indictment. Normally my colleagues would reverse the conviction on this single count and affirm the judgment on the remaining counts. To say that the defendants were not surprised by the evidence is to answer a claim not raised. No party claims surprise by the evidence. It was clearly admissible as part of the proof of Count 1 but it was not relevant to any offense charged in Count 2. If surprise is necessary, all parties were clearly surprised by the instruction that the jury could misuse evidence of an offense that was not charged to return a guilty verdict on another offense.