Opinion ID: 1301463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amended Information and Sufficiency of Evidence

Text: Defendant claims that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict because the information was incorrectly amended. Defendant's argument on this point is rather confused. At trial, the prosecutor moved to amend the information. The information originally read that defendant had engaged in a sexual act upon a child under the age of 14 involving the genitals of the actor and the mouth of the child. The prosecutor, after opening statements but before trial testimony, moved to amend the information by adding or involving the genitals of the child and the mouth of the actor. However, the information was mistakenly amended to read or involving the genitals of the child and the mouth of the child. Defendant claims that this mistake resulted in insufficient evidence to prove the offense as alleged. We disagree. At trial, the following exchange took place: Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, with regard to the information, from my own oversight I guess if nothing else, Nathan was reading from the information when he made his opening statement, and it occurred to me that it appears that the wording with regard to the specific act of sodomy is in reverse to what we are alleging. It says that the child placed his mouth on the genitals of the father. The Court: Uh-huh. Mr. Jenkins: At the preliminary hearing, both on direct and cross examination, the boy testified the other way around, and we've always maintained that what we're talking about is the father placing his mouth on the genitals of the child. It's still sodomy, one way or the other. I would move to amend the information to at least allege in the alternative, leave it the way it is and say, or involving the genitals of the child and the mouth of the actor. The court allowed the prosecutor to write the amendment on the information. Defendant's counsel objected to the amendment, stating, I guess we object at this late state just because we were prepared to face that particular allegation. Defendant does not renew the claim of surprise on appeal, although this was his only objection to the amendment at trial. In the absence of other objections, defendant cannot claim on appeal that the trial court erred by allowing the amendment. We do not believe that in this case the incorrectness of the amendment is cause to reverse defendant's conviction. Although the information was amended in error by the prosecutor, defendant was not prejudiced by the mistake. The discussion at trial demonstrates that defendant's counsel understood how the information was to be amended, and throughout the trial, all parties acted as though the information had been amended correctly. Moreover, the incorrect amendment appears on the statement of facts on page two of the information which detail the charge. See Utah R.Crim.P. 4(b). The charge of sodomy on a child was correctly written and not changed by the amendment. This Court will overturn a jury verdict only when the evidence is so lacking and insubstantial that a reasonable person could not have reached that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dumas, 721 P.2d 502, 504 (Utah 1986) (quoting State v. Isaacson, 704 P.2d 555, 557 (Utah 1985)). We do not believe that this standard has been met. Although the victim's testimony at trial was inconsistent in some aspects with his testimony at the preliminary hearing, the jury chose to believe the victim's account of events over defendant's. Such a choice between conflicting testimony is within the province of the jury. State v. Gentry, 747 P.2d 1032, 1039 (Utah 1987). The incorrectly amended information does not undermine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the sodomy conviction.