Opinion ID: 1106985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in denying Scott's motion for a new trial.

Text: ¶ 31. Scott's post-trial motion sought JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. Scott argues that a new trial is warranted because the state improperly amended his indictment. This argument was first advanced during trial when Scott moved to dismiss the indictment, then again in an objection during deliberations over jury instructions, and finally in his motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The crux of Scott's argument is that the original indictment stated that the personal property taken from the victim was a wallet. Through counsel, Scott argued, Proof here has not shown the taking and carrying away of a wallet. It has only shown at best that a checkbook and a check were found in Mr. Scott's car. The state responded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on each of the counts charged. The trial court denied Scott's motion to dismiss the indictment. ¶ 32. During deliberations over jury instructions, the state sought to introduce an instruction that stated that the personal property taken from the victim was a wallet and checkbook. The defendant argued that such an instruction did not track the language of the indictment. The state responded that a wallet includes in its contents a checkbook. The state then moved to amend the indictment to conform to the proof. The trial court granted the motion and amended the indictment to say wallet and checkbook. After trial, Scott filed his motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and the trial court denied it. ¶ 33. Allowing an amendment to the indictment after the close of evidence does not, standing alone, constitute reversible error. An indictment may be amended without action of the grand jury if the amendment is one of form and not of substance. Goodin v. State, 977 So.2d 338, 340-341 (Miss. 2008) (citing Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 898 (Miss.2000)). Amendments are permissible if they do not prejudice the defendant by materially altering the essential facts of the offense or a defense under the original indictment. Lee v. State, 944 So.2d 35, 40 (Miss.2006). ¶ 34. In Greenlee v. State , this Court held that amending a murder indictment from malice aforethought to deliberate design is one of form, not substance. Greenlee v. State, 725 So.2d 816, 822 (Miss. 1998). In the present case, the original indictment included the word wallet, and the amendment thereto merely added and checkbook. The amendment was one of form and not of substance. It did not alter the essential facts of the offense charged, nor did it alter an available defense. Therefore, Scott was not prejudiced by the addition, and this issue has no merit.