Opinion ID: 1960245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: instruction on drug paraphernalia.

Text: Appellant next assigns as error the trial court's drug paraphernalia instruction, contending that it improperly varied from the indictment. The original indictment focused on the plastic baggies with the cut-out corners. Count One: [Appellant] [c]ommitted the offense of Possession of drug paraphernalia when he had in his possession baggies and twist ties said items being used for the distribution and ingestion of controlled substance [sic], while being armed with a firearm. The jury instruction, in contrast, shifted the focus to the syringe and spoon. You will find the Defendant guilty of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under this Instruction if, and only if, you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the following: A. That in this county on or about July 18, 2000, and before the finding of the Indictment herein, the defendant had in his possession with the intent to use items to assist in the use or ingestion of Methamphetamine or Marijuana into the body; AND B. That the defendant did so with the intent to ingest Methamphetamine or Marijuana into his body. Appellant claims this variance deprived him of his right to have the jury instructions submit the same offense charged in the indictment, Maddox v. Commonwealth, Ky., 349 S.W.2d 686, 692 (1961), and of his right to a unanimous verdict pursuant to section 7 of the Kentucky Constitution, KRS 29A.280(3), and RCr. 9.82(1). Again, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review. As noted in Part II of this opinion, supra, [n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless an objection is made or an alternate instruction is tendered. RCr 9.54(2). Appellant made no objection and offered no alternative to this instruction. Accordingly, he may not assign as error the giving of the drug paraphernalia instruction. Even if that were not so, the claim of error is without merit. The Commonwealth followed the proper procedure for amending the indictment with respect to the drug paraphernalia charge. RCr 6.16 provides: The court may permit an indictment ... to be amended any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced. If justice requires, however, the court shall grant the defendant a continuance when such an amendment is permitted. (Emphasis added.) During a pre-trial conference, Appellant objected to introduction of any evidence of the spoon or hypodermic needle because they were not mentioned in the indictment. The prosecutor responded that he would move to amend the indictment. Counsel: I also am asking to exclude specifically several items that were recovered in the search again that he was not charged with. The scanner in particular. The piece of paper with police radio frequencies on it. A holster was recovered, not in the same location that the gun in question was found, but in a different location. And then there were several, there was at least one syringe removed from Mr. Johnson's back pocket found which was not named in the indictment as being part of drug paraphernalia ... Pros: Your honor we intend to move to amend the indictment to conform to the evidence. I think that is paraphernalia, and should as well be included in the consideration of the jury. At the close of the evidence, the prosecutor formally moved to amend the indictment to conform to the evidence. No new indictment was transcribed on paper but the trial court and the parties treated the Commonwealth's proposed jury instructions as an amendment of the indictment. Appellant registered no objection to the form of the amendment. Identifying additional items of paraphernalia did not charge Appellant with an additional or different offense. E.g., Schambon v. Commonwealth, Ky., 821 S.W.2d 804, 810 (1991); Robards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 419 S.W.2d 570, 573 (1967). Appellant relies on Maddox, supra ; but Maddox stands for the proposition that the indictment and jury instructions need not be perfectly matched so long as they describe the same offense: If the guts are there the feathers are inconsequential. 349 S.W.2d at 693; see also Washington v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 6 S.W.3d 384, 386-87 (1999) (affirming despite variance between the indictment and the jury instructions when defendant was not surprised by the evidence and his substantial rights were not jeopardized). There simply was no variance here. Appellant's argument that the instruction denied him the right to a unanimous verdict is also without merit. The fact that the Commonwealth presented evidence of several different items of paraphernalia, or even that the jurors might have based their verdict on different items of paraphernalia, does not jeopardize Appellant's right to a unanimous verdict in the absence of a failure of proof as to one of the items of paraphernalia. [W]hen [the jury was] presented with alternate theories of guilt in an instruction, the Commonwealth does not have to show that each juror adhered to the same theory. Rather, the Commonwealth has to show that it has met its burden of proof under all of the alternate theories presented in the instruction. Once that is shown, it becomes irrelevant which theory each individual juror believed. Burnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 31 S.W.3d 878, 883-84 (2000); see also Ice v. Commonwealth, Ky., 667 S.W.2d 671, 677 (1984); Wells v. Commonwealth, Ky., 561 S.W.2d 85, 87-88 (1978). Appellant does not assert that the Commonwealth failed to prove his possession of any of the items of drug paraphernalia beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, even if Appellant's objection had been preserved, the instruction did not jeopardize his right to a unanimous verdict.