Opinion ID: 2588599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the instruction result in a fatal variance?

Text: [¶ 26] Two major precepts govern the law of variances. First, a variance occurs when the evidence presented at trial proves facts different from those alleged in the information or indictment. Second, a variance is not fatalthat is, it does not require reversal of a conviction unless the appellant could not have anticipated from the indictment or information what evidence would be admitted at trial, or the conviction would not bar subsequent prosecution. Spagner v. State, 2009 WY 12, ¶ 15, 200 P.3d 793, 800 (Wyo.2009). The concept of a variance arises out of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 10 of the Wyoming Constitution and W.R.Cr.P. 3, which provisions guarantee an accused the right to notice of the charges against him and a right for that notice sufficiently to inform him of the specific charges against which he must defend. Spagner, 2009 WY 12, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d 793, 798-99. To ensure this right, [t]hese constitutional provisions and the procedural rule require that an information (1) contain the elements of the offense charged; (2) fairly inform a defendant of the charges against which he must defend; and (3) enable a defendant to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. Id. at ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 799. In interpreting these requirements, this Court has held that an information is sufficient if it is `in the words of the statute.' Id. at ¶ 11, 200 P.3d at 799. [¶ 27] Because the right to notice of criminal charges is of constitutional magnitude and the determination on the adequacy of the notice is a question of law, we review the issue de novo.  Id. at ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 799. [¶ 28] Without citing any supporting authority, the appellant points to the jury's question and states: Confusion is certainly one of those considerations this Court considers when discussing whether a variance is applicable because the jury did not understand the jury instructions which interfered with its ability to `properly' understand the separate elements of each crime and this discrepancy between the evidence and jury instruction is a proper reflection of what a variance means. The appellant is attempting to argue the existence of a variance where the facts clearly do not support such. [5] The Information here was drafted in the words of the statute. Additionally, the Information identified the approximate location, approximate time frame, and the specific victim of this crime. Consequently, the appellant was fully and fairly informed of the charges and, if acquitted, was subject to a bar of future prosecutions for the death of Jennifer Randel. At trial, the State continued on this course and presented evidence showing that the appellant purposely and with premeditated malice killed Jennifer Randel sometime between November 3, 2007, and November 4, 2007, in Natrona County, Wyoming. The jury's question and possible confusion had no bearing on the adequacy of the notice provided to the appellant of the charges against him, nor did it indicate that the evidence at trial demonstrated facts different from those alleged in the information. No variance occurred here.