State v. Haji

An amendment to an indictment is improper when the “omission of the allegations from the original indictment was a defect of ‘form’ within the meaning of Article VII,” with the matter of “form” being one that is not “essential to show that an offense has been committed.” State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, (1992).

Defendant appealed his judgment of conviction of his three charges. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s allowance of the State’s motion to amend his indictment and the denial of Defendant’s demurrer. On appeal, Defendant argued that the omission of the allegations could not be remedied without resubmission to the grand jury and also filed a demurrer. In response, the State responded that the trial court properly allowed the amendment and properly denied the demurrer. An amendment to an indictment is improper when the “omission of the allegations from the original indictment was a defect of ‘form’ within the meaning of Article VII,” with the matter of “form” being one that is not “essential to show that an offense has been committed.” State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103, (1992). The Court held that the motion to amend was proper because did not change the “essential nature of the indictment,” “the amendments also did not change what defenses to those charges might be available to defendant,” and “the amendments did not alter the charges in a way that would affect the availability of evidence to defendant.” Affirmed.