Court Opinion

ID: 9755980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:01:42.693294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:13.736993
License: Public Domain

MACK, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
I.
“Slippery Slope” is hardly an acceptable phrase for use in the traditionally formal parlance of legal writing. However, it is a phrase that most adequately conveys the apprehension a citizen feels (or should feel) when faced with a legal pronouncement that may represent, if even slightly, an erosion of constitutional protections. The Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to a defendant the right to be tried only upon criminal charges returned in a grand jury indictment. Just recently this court reaffirmed the principle that convictions obtained upon proof of essential facts not scrutinized by a grand jury may constitute a constructive amendment of the indictment, which requires reversal. Wooley v. United States, 697 A.2d 777 (D.C.1997) (reversing a conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, cocaine, where the indictment charged possession with intent to distribute heroin). Cf Robinson v. United States, 697 A.2d 787 (D.C.1997) (reversing a conviction where the indictment charged distribution of heroin and the evidence at trial established that the substance was in fact cocaine).
The Wooley/Robinson division opinions read together, carry the weight of “near” en banc decisions of this court. Thus, two judges, voicing the opinion that a variance between the grand jury’s charge (of heroin possession) and the evidence at trial (of cocaine possession) had not prejudiced Mr. Robinson, nevertheless agreed to reversal because a third member of the Robinson division agreed with the judges in the Wooley division that reversal was required (upon facts “not readily distinguishable”).
The prohibition against “constructive amendment” of an indictment, ingrained in the Fifth Amendment (and in Rule 7(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure) is not a hollow rule; it is not a rule “ordained” by “impregnable citadels of technicality.” See Robinson, supra, 697 A.2d at *679792 (Schwelb, J. quoting 11 CHARLES Alan Wright, Aethur R. Miller & Mary Kay kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2881, at 441-42 (1995)). As Judge Ruiz ably noted in concurring in reversal, see Robinson, supra at 793-94:
Under that view (i.e., that in the absence of prejudice a guilty verdict should not be set aside because of a “single misstep” by the prosecution and “an inadvertent error in the indictment”) the grand jury is but a quaint technicality. That kind of reasoning, though facially appealing as “common sense” with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight provided through the lenses of a petit jury’s verdict, simply misses the point of the protection offered by the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause.
In the same vein, Judge Ferren, in Wooley, supra, 697 A.2d at 779, wrote citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630-31, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935):
“The general rule that allegations and proof must correspond is based upon the obvious requirements” that (1) the accused must be “definitely informed” of the charges so that he or she can adequately prepare a defense, and (2) the crime must be defined with sufficient precision that the accused assuredly will not risk “another prosecution for the same offense.”
Judge Ferren voiced a third concern for which the grand jury clause provides protection, i.e., that a prosecutor or judge might supplant the grand jury by altering the charge to fit the proof, and thereby would seek conviction “on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury.” Citing Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1050-51, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); accord Scutchings v. United States, 509 A.2d 634, 636 (D.C.1986).
Despite the divergence of expressions as to what the outcome should have been in the Wooley/Robinson cases, the logic of the reasoning cannot be distinguished so as to support affirmance in the instant case. Measured by this divergence one might attempt to distinguish facts; measured by this logic, we are not required to engage in such a convoluted exercise. We must reverse.
II.
It is facially apparent (as the instant case demonstrates) that a variance between the proof at trial of the date of the commission of the crime and the date of its commission as alleged by the grand jury, may be so unreasonable as to amount to a constructive amendment. Such a variance does not convey the definite information that would enable a defendant to prepare an adequate defense. Obviously, in hindsight, we cannot conclude (as does the majority in the instant case) that because Mr. Pace did not assert an alibi defense at trial, he has not been prejudiced; a defense may well be, as here, that “I did not do this and I may (or may not) be able to assert a provable alibi defense.”1
Moreover, an unreasonable variance as to the time of a crime’s commission reduces the role of the grand jury to a “quaint technicality;” it does not protect Mr. Pace against the risk of another “prosecution for the same offense,” an issue which the majority here dismisses as not being argued (together with a summary “we discern no such danger”). Most important of all, an unreasonable variance as to time of the commission here has not protected Mr. Pace from the alternative of the charge to fit the proof so as to obtain a conviction on facts not found or not even presented to the grand jury.
III.
Rule 7(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure generally provides what an indictment must include. There, it is specified, “The indictment ... shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense *680charged.” The time of the commission of the offense is an essential fact. The litany that an indictment must inform the defendant of “the precise nature” of the alleged offense cannot be read as applying only to the essential elements of a crime. See In re J.R.G., 305 A.2d 529, 530 (D.C.1973). Indeed, we have recognized that an amendment of an indictment “deprives the defendant of the constitutional right to be tried upon the charge subjected to the grand jury’s scrutiny,” and requires reversal. Ingram v. United States, 592 A.2d 992, 1005 (D.C.1991). Although slight variances between the words of an indictment and the proof at trial are permitted, “prejudicial variance” (amounting to the constructive amendment of the charges as rendered by the grand jury) is not permitted. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 757, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1243-44, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). Thus, we have held that constructive amendment of the indictment occurs where the facts asserted at trial “materially differ from the facts contained in the indictment,” even where the essential elements of the offense are the same. (Oliver) Johnson v. United States, 613 A.2d 1381, 1384-85 (D.C.1992).
Specifically, in eases involving divergence between an indictment’s date of offense and the proof, we have noted generally (in a case where there was a variance of one day) that where an indictment charges “on or about” a certain date “a defendant is on notice that a particular date is not critical” but that the evidence will conform to the indictment in such circumstances only “if it establishes that the offense ivas committed on a date reasonably close to the one alleged.” Ingram v. United States, supra, 592 A.2d at 1002. We have never accepted a variance of time of several months between indictment allegation and proof at trial as being not critical.2
IV.
Today my colleagues find that, even if there was a constructive amendment amounting to a factual difference between proof and indictment, Mr. Pace cannot prevail because he has shown no prejudice. I suggest that, again, the element of prejudice is facially apparent. Mr. Pace was convicted; he was convicted on a record of unreliable, imper-missibly vague and conflicting testimony which even my colleagues find less than “overwhelming).” 3
The transcript in this case reflects the dilemma faced by an accused, an alleged victim, family members, and the trial court, when the prosecution proceeds to trial without adequate preparation. Mr. Pace was initially charged with nine counts of sexual abuse (Enticing, Indecent Liberties, and Sodomy) involving three of his paramour’s children, then ages 10, 8, and 5. The government thereafter moved to dismiss the counts as to the ten-year-old and trial was scheduled on the remaining six counts. At the pretrial voir dire stage, the trial court found the five-year-old boy incompetent to testify at trial.4 It followed thereafter that Mr. Pace was *681eventually convicted only on the counts relating to J.R., the eight-year-old. As to these counts, the indictment charged the offenses as occurring “[b]etween on or about April 1, 1994 and on or about April 30,1994.”
The proof at trial (as to time of commission) was even less exacting than the indictment’s unusually vague allegation. The only witness providing direct evidence of the alleged abuse 5 was J.R. who did not specify a date of “the” offense other than to say, in response to cross-examination, that it occurred during the school year (obviously a reference covering the date of September 1993 through June 1994). Moreover, she specifically and unequivocally testified at five different points that she had been assaulted by appellant only once.
The testimony by other witnesses likewise broadened the element of time. Thus, J.R.’s mother, testifying in defense of Mr. Pace, admitted that J.R. had reported an assault to her around Christmas of 1993, and that she unsuccessfully sought medical attention where she was told by an attendant that J.R. did not appear to be an abused child. J.R. had never reported an assault to her. again and she did not pursue the matter further. A police detective testified who had visited the two bedroom apartment where appellant’s paramour lived with five children (including two fathered by appellant). The officer (who, according to appellant, threatened to have the children removed if appellant did not move out) recalled that J.R. had told him that she was assaulted more than once between Christmas 1993 and the end of May 1994, thus not only broadening the element of time but also the number of criminal acts. A doctor who examined J.R. in June 1994, remembered J.R.’s mother as indicating that the assault may have occurred sometime between Christmas 1993 and April 1994.
It is obvious why appellant, who by all accounts was a father-figure to five children on a daily basis, would not, indeed could not, defend himself by advancing an alibi. It is also obvious that Mr. Pace was not put on notice that he would be required to defend himself against further accusations of criminal acts covering at least a five-month period of time beyond that alleged in the indictment.
Although in this jurisdiction, we have deemed date variances (covering a one to two day period)to be so minor as to avoid being labeled as constructive amendments (see Ingram, supra; Jeffcoat v. United States, 551 A.2d 1301 (D.C.1988)), we have not until today accepted a variance of several months between the indictment and requirement in Ingram, supra, 592 A.2d at 1007, that the proof at trial must be of a date “reasonably close” to the date specified in the indictment. Moreover, we have held that it is an impermissible variance — a constructive amendment of the indictment — for the government at trial to broaden an indictment to include different criminal acts. Johnson v. United States, supra, 613 A.2d at 1384-85.
Finally, we can all appreciate the difficulties faced by the government in these types of cases, especially when unwelcomed prosecution is pursued. Even though it might mean further trauma to particularly vulnerable people, perhaps it would be best to have the complainant testify before the Grand Jury in this matter, thereby increasing the chances that the Grand Jury would pass on the same allegations as are subsequently made at trial. In any event, I am troubled by the government’s argument that the absence and vagaries of proof shows appellant’s guilt and should be excused. That argument comes dangerously close to a plea for the substitution of a prosecutor’s belief in guilt or innocence for that of a petit jury. Failures of proof may be endemic to these sorts of prosecution. However, the protections afforded to defendants by the Constitution apply in the same way in every criminal case and it is within the strictures of that guiding document that prosecutions must fit, not the other way around.
In this regard, I commend to the government the words of Judge Farrell (concurring in the judgment of reversal in the Wooley decision, supra, 697 A2d at 785: “[T]he government could have easily overcome the mis*682hap that occurred ... by passing the case through another grand jury..’..” I would reverse).

. In this court, the brief of the government states the position of Mr. Pace as follows:
[Ajppellant now claims that the evidence at trial was of incidents that took place between December 1993 and June 1994, that there was no evidence presented by either party that the incidents took place "particularly within the time frame charged in the indictment" that he was not on notice as to the greater time period, and that he therefore could not present an adequate defense.

. There are cases from other jurisdictions stating that, "proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient." United States v. Morris, 700 F.2d 427, 429 (1st Cir.)(quoting 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 125, at 383 (1982)), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 947, 103 S.Ct. 2128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1306 (1983); see United States v. Auerbach, 913 F.2d 407, 412 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1027 (1985). That we do not follow such a rule is plain from our decisions. See Wooley, supra. Moreover, such a rule would create the truly bizarre local situation that a murder indictment would have to provide only that the offense occurred "sometime prior to the date of the indictment," since the offense of murder carries no statute of limitations in the District. See D.C.Code § 23-1113(a)(1) (1989 Repl.).

. The trial court faced with a motion for judgment of acquittal deferred its ruling on the issue. After trial, it denied a motion to set aside the verdict.

. On voir dire to determine competency, the five-year-old boy correctly identified the trial judge's hair as red, answered "no” when asked if it was green, but promptly thereafter indicated that on the stand he was going to tell a lie and that he wanted to leave.
The eighriyear-old girl, J.R. (the subject of this appeal) fared somewhat better, although when asked if she told the truth to friends, answered, “My mother told me don't tell anybody my business."

. The bulk of J.R.'s testimony was extremely vague. In my view, the assertion that she described two different events at two different times is only supported by a selective and rather slanted reading.