Opinion ID: 599011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Offense Charged in Indictment

Text: 32 Rodriguez asserts that in the indictment he was charged with violating 21 U.S.C. § 845(a) (distribution to persons under age twenty-one). No evidence was presented regarding this charge. Rodriguez claims that he was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 845a (distribution or manufacturing in or near schools and colleges), which was not charged in the indictment. Based thereon, he contends that this variance constitutes a constructive amendment to the indictment, requiring reversal. 33 While the language of the indictment correctly identifies by description and number the offense charged (21 U.S.C. § 845a--intent to distribute at a place within one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public college), the caption of the indictment erroneously enumerates the statute as 21 U.S.C. § 845(a). An error in the citation of a statute, or its omission, is not grounds for dismissal of an indictment or information, nor is it grounds for reversal of a conviction unless the error or omission misleads the defendant to his prejudice. United States v. Malicoate, 531 F.2d 439, 440 (10th Cir.1975). 34 Rodriguez does not assert that this reference misled him to his prejudice, and the record would not support such a contention. Trial testimony indicates that Rodriguez resided near a public college. The arraignment proceeding transcript does not reveal that Rodriguez was misled as to the charge concerning proximity to a school. Moreover, Rodriguez did not object to jury instructions given regarding this charge. It is clear that, regardless of the statutory citation, Rodriguez was aware that he was charged with intentionally distributing narcotics within one thousand feet of a public college. We hold that the indictment clearly identifies the correct violation, both by statutory reference to 21 U.S.C. § 845a and by specific language regarding proximity to a school.