Court Opinion

ID: 9855250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:21:35.901744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:22.039420
License: Public Domain

Justice Webb
dissenting.
I dissent. I believe it was error to allow the State to amend the indictment to allege the defendant was driving in a public vehicular *71area. The majority says the situs of the impaired driving offense is one of the essential elements of the offense charged. Nevertheless, the majority says, it was not error to allow this amendment because it was alleged in the indictment that the offense occurred on a highway which was a situs included within the parameters of N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a). “It was merely a refinement in the description of the type of situs on which defendant was driving while impaired rather than a change in an essential element of the offense,” says the majority. State v. Snyder, 343 N.C. 61, 67, 468 S.E.2d 221, 225 (1996)
I do not believe this amendment to the indictment was merely a refinement in the description of the situs alleged in the indictment. Adding the words “public vehicular area” to the indictment changed one of the elements in the offense charged and substantially altered the charge. It violated Article I, Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution and N.C.G.S. § 15A-923(e) (1988).
I vote to affirm the Court of Appeals.