Opinion ID: 1359705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Variance of the Indictment

Text: Buchanan also argues that the evidence presented at trial constituted a variance of the Indictment. A variance arises when the evidence presented proves facts that are materially different from those alleged in the indictment. United States v. Begnaud, 783 F.2d 144, 147 n. 4 (8th Cir.1986). [A] variance in the evidence affects the defendant's right to adequate notice under the Sixth Amendment. Stuckey, 220 F.3d at 981. When a variance occurs, [t]he charging document does not change, only the evidence against which the defendant expected to defend varies. Id. Whether a variance exists, and, if so, whether that variance prejudiced [the defendant] are questions of law that we review de novo. Id. at 979. Where the indictment fully and fairly apprises the defendant of the allegations against which he must defend, prejudice is absent and any variance is harmless error. See Begnaud, 783 F.2d at 148; see also Stuckey, 220 F.3d at 982 (holding that any variance between the indictment date and proof at trial did not result in material prejudice where time was not a material element of the criminal offense). Here, the Indictment charged Buchanan with attempt to manufacture methamphetamine on or about February 2006. The offense of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine did not require the Government to prove the Indictment date as an element of the crime. Rather, the charge required the Government to prove that Buchanan carried out substantial steps toward the manufacture of methamphetamine. United States v. Beltz, 385 F.3d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir.2004). It is exactly those steps that the Government sought to prove in its presentation of evidence. While the evidence presented at trial extended as far back as the spring of 2005, that evidence was not materially different from the allegations of the Indictment, and the Indictment fully and fairly apprised Buchanan of the charge he faced at trial. We therefore conclude that any variance that existed as a result of the evidence proffered did not materially prejudice Buchanan.