Opinion ID: 2292054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Amendment of the Indictment was Proper

Text: Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to amend the indictment for first-degree assault the morning of the first day of trial. The amendment changed the mental state for the first-degree assault charge from intentionally to wantonly. Appellant did not object to the amendment. In fact, Appellant's counsel assented to the amendment. Nevertheless, Appellant requests that we review this for palpable error. RCr 10.26. RCr 6.16 states: The court may permit an indictment, information, complaint, or citation to be amended at any time before the 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. The amendment of the indictment satisfies RCr 6.16 because it was made before the trial began and did not charge Appellant with a new or different offense. Appellant had ample notice of the nature of the assault charge to prepare and present an effective defense. See Basham v. Commonwealth, 703 S.W.2d 480 (Ky.App.1985) (holding that an indictment which was amended to include the element of intent at the close of the Commonwealth's case was not prejudicial to the defendant). The appropriate relief when justice requires is a continuance, which Appellant never requested. RCr 6.16. We discern no prejudice arising out the amendment. There is no error here.