Opinion ID: 2074034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Variance Between Information and Evidence

Text: Appealing the denial of his motion for judgment on the evidence, the defendant asserts that there exists a fatal variance between the information and the evidence presented at trial. First he argues that the information charged him with taking the victim's property by grabbing her about the waist and arms and forcing her into the bedroom. He contends that the evidence does not support this charge. Second, he contends that the State charged him with taking the purses from the victim but only proved that the purses were taken from her presence. The information charged the defendant with robbery, Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1 which states: A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person: (1) By using or threatening the use of force on any person; or (2) By putting any person in fear; commits robbery. The information charges the defendant with: knowingly and by using force on [the victim], to wit: by physically grabbing the [victim] about the waist and arms and forcing her into her bedroom where the [defendant] ordered [the victim] to remain; tak[ing] property, to wit: two (2) purses, one of which contained $60.00 in cash, two (2) checkbooks and several credit cards from the [victim]... . Contrary to the defendant's contention, the information does not allege that he took the purses by grabbing the victim. The information alleges that he forced the victim into her bedroom, thus enabling him to take the purses from another room. The evidence at trial conformed to the charge. Regarding his second contention, the information does not specify whether the State was alleging that he removed the purses from her person or her presence. Minor variances from the wording of a statute do not make an information defective so long as the words, construed according to their common usage, do not mislead the accused or do not omit an essential element of the crime. Myers v. State (1987), Ind., 510 N.E.2d 1360, 1367. The information does not omit any essential element of robbery nor does it mislead the defendant as to what the State was charging.