Opinion ID: 1961155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amendment to the Indictment.

Text: Although this case will be remanded for a new trial, the issue of the amendment to the Indictment must be addressed because of its potential double jeopardy implication regarding the affected count were we to find petitioner's argument had merit. We, therefore, shall address the second issue raised, that of whether a mid-trial amendment to the Indictment changing the statutory reference was properly received. Maryland Rule 4-204 permits an amendment to a charging document under certain circumstances. Rule 4-204 provides that: [o]n motion of a party or on its own initiative, the court at any time before verdict may permit a charging document to be amended except that if the amendment changes the character of the offense charged, the consent of the parties is required. Md. Rule 4-204 (2000). [9] Thompson did not consent to the amendment. Rather, he objected based on his assertion that the amendment specifically changed the penalty from a flat fine to one with a possibility of one-year incarceration. We, therefore, must determine whether the amendment of the Second Count during trial changed the character of that offense. Initially, the Second Count of the Indictment stated, in pertinent part, the following: COUNT TWO: Possession of Controlled Paraphernalia ... that TERRY HUGH THOMPSON, on or about April 27, 2000, in Montgomery County, Maryland unlawfully did possess controlled paraphernalia in sufficient quantity to and under circumstances which reasonably indicate an intention to use such items for the illegal distribution and dispensing of a controlled dangerous substance, to wit: a digital scale, glassine baggies, Philly blunt cigars, rolling papers, and a wooden pipe, in violation of Article 27, Section 287A of the Annotated Code of Maryland.... (Possession of Controlled Paraphernalia, Article 27, Section 287A) On the final day of trial, the State moved to amend this count by substituting the statutory citations. The State sought to change the citation from Article 27, Section 287A to Article 27, Section 287(d)(2). Section 287A bears a possible maximum fine of $500.00 while the possible penalty for a violation of Section 287(d)(2) is a oneyear prison term. As we have stated, the purpose of an indictment is to provide notice to the accused of the charge against him and to guard against the possibility of unfair surprise during trial. [10] Johnson, 358 Md. at 392, 749 A.2d at 773. Adequate notice is given when a charging document contains both a characterization of the crime and the particular act alleged to have been committed. Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155, 163, 433 A.2d 1150, 1155 (1981). Our guidance in Ayre is based on former Maryland Rule 711 a, now Rule 4-202(a), [11] requiring a charging document to contain a definite statement of the essential facts of the offense with which the defendant is charged. With respect to the role of the statutory citation in this scheme, we note that Maryland Rule 4-202(a) also states that, [t]he statute or other authority for each count shall be cited at the end of the count, but error in or omission of the citation of authority is not grounds for dismissal of the charging document or for reversal of a conviction. In Ayre we iterated that [the statutory] reference exists as a matter of convenience to the parties and the court, and thus possesses no substance of its own. [12] Ayre, at 168 n. 9, 433 A.2d at 1158 n. 9. The character of the offense is determined by what is stated in the body of an indictment, not the statutory reference or caption. [13] Busch v. State, 289 Md. 669, 678, 426 A.2d 954, 959 (1981). The character of the offense charged is really the gravamen of Thompson's challenge, so we proceed to explore the language of the Second Count as compared to Sections 287A and 287(d)(2). Below is the language of these three texts at issue-the initial Indictment, Article 27, Section 287A and Article 27, Section 287: [14] Initial Indictment Langage of Article 27, Language of Article 27, Count 2 §287A §287(d)(2) Possession of Controlled 287 A Drug Paraphernalia Unlawful possession or distribution Paraphernalia of controlled paraphernalia... TERRY HUGH (a) DefinitionAs used in (d) To possess or distribute THOMPSON, on or about this section, the term controlled paraphernalia, April 27, 2000, in Montgomery drugparaphernalia means which shall mean: County, Maryland, unlawfully all equipment, products, (2) Gelatin capsules, glassine did possess controlled and materials of any kind envelopes or any other paraphernalia in which are used, intended container suitable for the sufficient quantity to and for use, ... in ... introducing packaging of individual under circumstances which into the human body quantities of controlled dangerous reasonably indicate an intention a controlled dangerous substance. substances in sufficient to use such items ... It includes but quantity to and under for the illegal distribution is not limited to: (5) scales circumstances which reasonably and dispensing of a controlled ... (9) capsules, balloons, indicate an intention dangerous substance, envelopes and other containers to use any such item to wit: a digital used, intended for for the illegal manufacture, scale, glassine baggies, use, or designed for use in distribution, or dispensing Philly blunt cigars, rolling packaging small quantities of any such controlled dangerous papers, and a wooden pipe, of controlled dangerous substance. Evidence in violation of Article 27, substances; (10) Containers of such circumstances Section 287A of the Annotated and other objects used shall include but Code of Maryland, ... in storing or concealing not be limited to close contrary to the form of the controlled dangerous substances; proximity to any such controlled Act of Assembly in such (11) Hypodermic paraphernalia to any case made and provided, syringes, needles and other adulterants or equipment and against the peace, government objects used ... in parenterally commonly used in the illegal and dignity of the injecting controlled manufacture and distribution state. dangerous substances into of controlled dangerous the human body; (12) Objects substances, such as but used, intended for use not limited to any of the ... in introducing marijuana following: scales, sieves, ... into the human strainers, measuring body, such as: (i) metal, spoons, staples and staplers, wooden, acrylic, glass, or procaine hydrochloride, stone, plastic, or ceramic mannitol, lactose, pipes ... quinine, or any controlled (c) Use of possession with dangerous substance.... intent to use.It is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled dangerous substance.... The language of the Indictment reflects the language of Section 287(d)(2) at first glance. A more studied exploration supports this conclusion. The Second Count utilizes exact phrases from Section 287(d)(2) to indicate a charge against Thompson for possession of paraphernalia with the intent to distribute marijuana. The term controlled paraphernalia is used throughout the charging document. This terminology is included and defined exclusively in Section 287(d)(2) above. The following boldfaced language within the unamended Indictment indicates phraseology that is taken directly from the text of Section 287(d)(2):