Opinion ID: 2547964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion for a Directed Verdict and Amended Indictment

Text: Appellant argues next that the trial court erred when, after granting his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of trafficking in marijuana within 1,000 yards of a school, it permitted the Commonwealth to amend the indictment [9] to trafficking in marijuana, eight ounces or more. Appellant argues that permitting the Commonwealth to amend the indictment after a directed verdict was granted violated RCr 6.16. Because this issue is preserved, we review the trial court's decision to permit amendment of the indictment for abuse of discretion. See Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 838 S.W.2d 376, 378 (Ky.1991). RCr. 6.16 states, in relevant part: The court may permit an indictment, information, complaint or citation to be amended any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced. (Emphasis added). By the rule's plain language, a trial court may not permit an amendment after it has granted a directed verdict on a count. With respect to the original charge of trafficking in marijuana within 1,000 yards of a school, the trial court ruled as follows: Trial Judge: All right. There has not been any testimony with regard to location. I am going to, in essence, grant a directed verdict with regard to trafficking within 1,000 yards of a school; however, there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury of trafficking in greater than eight ounces. So that is the instruction, assuming that nothing else changes that's the instruction I'm likely to give with regard to Count Number 3 of the indictment. Prosecutor: I guess the Commonwealth would move to amend the count of the indictment based on the evidence. Trial Judge: There's sufficient evidence in the record to do that. I'm going to deny the motion for summary judgment on the other counts, or for directed verdict, on the other counts. However, your motion is preserved for the record. Counsel for the defense then objected to the amendment; his objection was overruled but noted for the record. The parties disagree as to whether a motion for directed verdict was actually granted. The Commonwealth argues that the trial judge's use of the phrase in essence prevents the ruling from being a directed verdict. We disagree. A trial judge cannot in essence grant a directed verdict but not actually grant it. Counsel for the defense moved for a directed verdict, arguing that no evidence had been offered with respect to Appellant's home being within 1,000 yards of a school. The trial court agreed and was therefore obliged to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on that count. The in essence language is of no consequence. Having granted a directed verdict of acquittal, the trial court had no authority to permit amendment of that count of the indictment under RCr 6.16; for an amendment to have been permissible, the directed verdict would first have to have been set aside. Furthermore, in this case, even if the trial court had not granted a directed verdict of acquittal, our decision would be the same because the indictment; as amended, charged an additional or different offense in violation of RCr 6.16. [10] Thus, the trial court abused its discretion and Appellant's conviction for trafficking in marijuana, eight ounces or more must be reversed, and his sentence for that conviction vacated.