Opinion ID: 1774403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Material Variance

Text: Williams next claims that a material variance occurred between the criminal information and the State's proof which was unduly prejudicial to his defense. We initially look to what constitutes a sufficient criminal information. On that point, this court recently stated: An information or other charging instrument is not defective if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the specific crime with which he is charged to the extent necessary to enable him to prepare a defense. State v. Johnson, 326 Ark. 189, 931 S.W.2d 760 (1996); Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991). An information is sufficient if the act or the omission charged as the offense is stated with a degree of certainty that enables the court to pronounce judgment on conviction. Johnson v. State, 55 Ark.App. 117, 932 S.W.2d 347 (1996). A variance between the wording of an indictment or information and the proof at trial does not warrant reversal unless the variance prejudices the substantial rights of the defendant. Id. McElhanon v. State, 329 Ark. 261, 264, 948 S.W.2d 89, 91. This court has found material variances which violated the substantial rights of the defendant only in limited circumstances. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 302 Ark. 234, 788 S.W.2d 241 (1990) (material variance where the State attempted to prove the crime of falsifying business records through elements of the crime not contained within the information); Von Tonglin v. State, 200 Ark. 1142, 143 S.W.2d 185 (1940) (material variance where the offense proved was the theft of a cow belonging to Mrs. F.S. Randolph when the offense charged was the theft of a cow belonging to Joe Randolph); Clemons v. State, 150 Ark. 425, 234 S.W. 475 (1921) (material variance where the State proved the theft of a steer when the offense charged was the theft of two cows). Williams contends that a material variance existed because the State did not prove that the rape occurred between May 1, 1994, and May 31, 1994, as set out in the amended information. As a result, he contends that he was hamstrung in his efforts to focus his defense on a given period of time. Williams appears, however, to concede that this court has held the precise time is not an essential element of the crime of rape. See Rains v. State, supra ; Douthitt v. State, 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996); Bonds v. State, 296 Ark. 1, 751 S.W.2d 339 (1988). Nevertheless, we dispose of this point based on Williams's failure to preserve this issue for our review. We have scoured the record for a motion to dismiss based on material variance. The only time the issue of an unproved date was raised at trial was in Williams's motion for directed verdict and the renewal of that same motion, and this issue was in the context of insufficient evidence presented by the State. We will not address arguments, even constitutional arguments, mounted for the first time on appeal. Davis v. State, supra ; Green v. State, 330 Ark. 458, 956 S.W.2d 849 (1997); McGehee v. State, supra . The record in this case has been examined for other reversible error pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 4-3(h), and none has been found. Affirmed.