Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals summary disposition order affirms the defendant's conviction and sentence for second-degree assault after he challenged the trial court's allowance of an amended felony information. The appellant argued that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 806-9 and Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 7(f)(1) prohibit amending an information similarly to how they restrict amending indictments. Applying a plain error standard of review, the court held that the statutory language "as near as may be" permits differences between indictments and informations, and found no prejudice to the defendant's substantial rights. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and probation sentence was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) prohibits amendment of an information before trial
- Whether plain error warrants reversal of the conviction and sentence
Holdings
- The court held that HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) does not bar amendment of an information when the amendment does not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.
- The court declined to find plain error, affirming the judgment of conviction and probation sentence.
Key quotations
“Plain error will apply "to correct errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights."”
Factual background
Jameson was charged with second‑degree assault based on an information that alleged injury to the complainant's left face. Evidence, including a sealed exhibit, showed the injury was to the right side of the face. The State moved to strike the erroneous description or amend it; the trial court denied the strike in part and allowed amendment. Jameson was convicted and sentenced to probation with a period of incarceration.
Procedural history
Jameson was convicted of second‑degree assault after a jury found him guilty following an amended felony information that corrected the facial injury description. He appealed, arguing that HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) prohibits amendment of an information and that plain error should reverse the judgment.