Opinion ID: 1668596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rodney Wright

Text: On August 31, 2003, Rodney Wright was indicted for first-degree robbery. At trial, the State presented testimony of the victim indicating that she may have been robbed by two people. Wright requested that the trial court instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree robbery. The trial court charged the jury on both first-degree and second-degree robbery. The jury found Wright guilty of second-degree robbery. Wright appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which requested Wright and the State to address the following question: Whether, under the facts of this case, [Wright's] conviction for robbery in the second degree is due to be reversed under the rationale of Ex parte Cole [, 842 So.2d 605] (Ala.2002). The Court of Criminal Appeals stated that sufficient evidence existed to support the trial court's charging the jury on second-degree robbery. Further, that court recognized that jury instructions can effectively amend an indictment. Wright, 902 So.2d at 731 (citing Ash v. State, 843 So.2d 213, 216 (Ala.2002)). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the trial court's instructions to the jury did not effect an amendment of the indictment in Wright's case, because the trial court in its instructions did not mention that another person was present and aided Wright in the commission of the robbery, an element of second-degree robbery. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Wright's conviction, stating that the trial court's actions did not properly amend the indictment but instead constituted an improper amendment charging a new offense.