Opinion ID: 2113737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Amend Criminal Information

Text: Before trial began, on July 17, 2006, the state moved to amend the criminal information, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, to correct the date of the offense for both charges. The information incorrectly listed the offenses as having occurred on or between May 1, 2005, and June 2, 2005, when the information should have stated that the offenses occurred between May and September 2004. The defendant objected to the amendment on the grounds that he had not had a chance to discuss these dates with his counsel. He claimed that he potentially would have sought an alibi defense if the dates had been different. The trial justice granted the motion because various documents in the court record referred to the summer of 2004  including the original police affidavit, the police report given by Pio, witness statements, and the arrest warrant  which were provided to the defense several months before trial. The trial justice concluded that a mistake had obviously been made and that there was no reason to delay the trial. On appeal, defendant argues, as he did below, that the amendment was prejudicial because he did not have an opportunity to discuss the dates of the offense with counsel, and, if he had, he would have pursued an alibi defense. The state counters that defendant could not have been surprised or prejudiced by the correction to the criminal information because the original warrant affidavit clearly stated that the offenses occurred in the summer of 2004, as did the witness statements and other documents appended to the original criminal information. Rule 7(e) affords the trial court the ability to grant a motion to amend the information or a criminal complaint 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. Thus, in those situations where the amendment is not charging an additional or different offense, an information can be amended without a defendant's consent if the amendment is non-prejudicial. State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 519 (R.I. 2004). In Grayhurst, 852 A.2d at 519, this Court held that the amendment of a criminal information due to what appeared to be a typographical error did not prejudice the substantive rights of the defendant. In that case, the fact that the information reflected incorrect dates for two of the crimes charged went unnoticed by the trial court until the jury was in deliberation. Id. In fact, the jury brought the error in dates to the trial court's attention. Id. This Court concluded that the amendment did not prejudice the defendant because he never argued to the jury that the state failed to present sufficient evidence on the charges for the incorrect dates or asserted an alibi or other defense that would make the offense dates a crucial aspect of his defense. Id. The Court found it dispositive that the defendant never took the discrepancy in dates into account. Id.; see also State v. Burke, 811 A.2d 1158, 1166 (R.I.2002) (holding that amendment to criminal information that incorrectly cited to a statutory misdemeanor offense when it should have cited to the felony section of the statute was a typographical error that did not prejudice the defendant). In this case, the amendment of the criminal information occurred before the jury was impaneled. Therefore, the amendment had less potential for prejudicial effect than that in Grayhurst. Although defendant has voiced his concern over the discrepancy in dates, contending he may have pursued an alibi defense, this argument is without merit. First, defendant could not have been surprised or prejudiced by the correction because other documents appended to the original criminal information, including the original police affidavit and the witness statements, referred to the summer of 2004. Second, the corrected information, listing the offenses as having occurred between May and September 2004, spans a five-month period. These vague and inexact dates would have made it nearly impossible for defendant to provide a plausible alibi. Because we find no discernible prejudice to defendant, we hold that the trial justice did not err by allowing the state to amend the information.