Opinion ID: 1498211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The court erred in permitting the Amendment of Counts Nine, Ten and Eleven by permitting the words `ration documents' to be substituted for `ration coupons' after the Government had virtually completed its case.

Text: In support of this argument, the appellants assert that they were caught by surprise, that the amendment constituted a charge of totally new and distinct offenses, that the amended language made the information vague, uncertain and ambiguous, and that the term `document' is nowhere defined in any of the ration orders. In this last statement, the appellants are demonstrably in error. In § 1.2 of General Ration Order No. 8, supra, we find, under the caption Definitions: When used in this order: `Ration document' means    stamp,    coupon,   . This very definition negatives the contention that the amendment constituted a charge of totally new and distinct offenses. Ration documents is the generic term that embraces both coupons, the word originally used in the information, and stamps, which were shown by the evidence to have been acquired by the appellants. There is no violent change in all this. The mere assertion that the appellants were surprised is not proof. The court has some discretion in such matters. In Muncy v. United States, 4 Cir., 289 F. 780, 781, the court said:    we need only observe that it is too well settled to require citation of authority that an information, unlike an indictment, may be amended by leave of court, even after motion to quash, demurrer, or plea (22 Cyc. p. 436, and cases cited); for, as Lord Mansfield observes, in Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr. 3567: `There is a great difference between amending indictments and amending informations. Indictments are found upon the oath of a jury, and ought only to be amended by themselves; but informations are as declarations in the king's suit. An officer of the crown has the right of framing them originally, and may, with leave, amend in like manner as any plaintiff may do.' See also Coates v. United States, 4 Cir., 290 F. 134, 135. Rule 7(e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 687, provides: Amendment of Information. The court may permit an information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced. The Rules of Criminal Procedure went into effect on March 21, 1946, after the trial in the instant case was had. In its Notes to Rules of Criminal Procedure, 4 F.R.D. 405, 412, however, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure observed, citing the Muncy case, supra: Note to Subdivision (e) [of Rule 7]. This rule continues the existing law that, unlike an indictment, an information may be amended. A careful study of the entire record has convinced us that the substantial rights of the appellants were not prejudiced by the amendment in question, and that the court below did not abuse its discretion in permitting it.