Opinion ID: 1943879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constructive Amendment of Indictment

Text: Appellant contends that the prosecution and the trial court constructively amended the indictment for the obstruction of justice. He points to the wording of the original grand jury indictment, which read within the District of Columbia, Darryl D. Crutchfield endeavored to influence, intimidate, and impede a witness. Appellant argues that at trial, the prosecution constructively amended the indictment by establishing that Wiseman was killed in Maryland rather than in the District of Columbia. [14] Further, appellant asserts that the trial court sustained the constructive amendment by phrasing the jury instruction on this count such that the obstructive act was no longer required to have been committed within the District of Columbia. The predicate for this argument is destroyed by our holding, above, and in Ford, supra, 616 A.2d at 1251-54. Thus, even if this point had been raised at trial it was notit is without merit. See id. at 1251-52, (holding that the phrase within the District of Columbia in the indictment for an obstructive act which occurred in Maryland refers to the location of the effect of that act).