Opinion ID: 698715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Variance Between the Indictment and the Proof at Trial

Text: 35  'A variance occurs when the charging terms of the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.'  United States v. Von Stoll, 726 F.2d 584, 586 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Cusmano, 659 F.2d 714, 718 (6th Cir.1981)). 36 The indictment here alleged a conspiracy extending from August 18, 1992, through September 23, 1992. The list of overt acts begins with Gil meeting a woman in a supermarket parking lot. At trial, however, the government presented evidence of a delivery made by Gil just prior to the first overt act listed in the indictment. Defendants argue that the evidence of this delivery constituted a prejudicial variance from the indictment that requires reversal. Because no objection regarding a variance from the indictment was raised at trial, the district court's admission of the evidence is subject to plain error scrutiny. United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1986). 37 While it is true that a defendant has a right not to be convicted of a crime not charged in the indictment, Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 216, 80 S.Ct. 270, 272-73, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960), the evidence of the delivery did not subject the defendants to an offense not already covered by the indictment. The disputed evidence concerned a delivery that occurred on September 2, 1992, well within the time period of the conspiracy alleged by the indictment. Furthermore, the act in question was consistent with the nature of the conspiracy because deliveries are a natural component to cocaine distribution conspiracies. Additionally, since there is no requirement in conspiracy cases that the government disclose even all the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979, 100 S.Ct. 480, 62 L.Ed.2d 405 (1979), the defendants have no grounds for complaining about an indictment that listed all but one of the overt acts. 38 The district court did not plainly err by admitting the evidence of an additional overt act, because that act occurred during the time period that the conspiracy was alleged to exist, and because the act was consistent with the crime charged.