ÿWPC  …UBV %˜U.žÌnXÜ 0P4 4„ 0”˜ 0D, 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ U,M 0dyU,ÝU6 B)?DCh B« AMÈXmÆ…v~K D3ÉvÓü 0@Ï AOÆ^ 0l$ 0D D/Ô B<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X) «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óo„p(D(3¾Á$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌFebruaryÏ29,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÔ€ÔThe€indictment€spells€the€defendant's€last€name€as€"Boughner."€€No€complaint€has€been€madeÏabout€this€spelling,€although€all€of€the€other€documents€in€the€record€of€this€matter€spell€the€defendant'sÏname€"Bougher."€€The€policy€of€this€Court€is€to€use€the€spelling€as€set€out€in€the€indictment.Ì ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€!ôÔÔ€ÔIndeed,€the€State€has€never€claimed€that€the€defendant€committed€the€offense€of€DUI€on€JuneÏ30,€1994.€€Also,€the€arrest€warrant€originally€issued€against€the€defendant€correctly€stated€the€date€asÏJuly€30,€1994.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(D3u$¢¢Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ X ÑÑ7€7ÉXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÙ€€ÙßL€%&#;+'h|` 81 `€€Lßà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àNOVEMBER€1995ÏSESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌÌò òSTATE€OFÏTENNESSEE,à àó óà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.Ï01C01„9506„CC„00200ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àAppellee,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.ÏJAMES€K.€CLAYTON,€JR.€,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌRICHARD€N.€BOUGHNER,€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(DUI)ò òà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óAppellant.ò òà àà àà à)à àÌó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THEÏAPPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òGUY€R.€DOTSON,ÏJR.à àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌó ó102€South€Maple€St.à àà àà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterò òÌó óMurfreesboro,€TN€€€37130ò òÌó óà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌ€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€RobertsonÏPkwy.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àGUY€R.€DOTSONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àò òà àà àà àJOHN€PRICEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJudicial€Bldg.à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TN€€€37130Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÌÇÑ  Ñà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌó óóóÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àOn€July€30,€1994,€the€defendant€was€stopped€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant€(DUI).€€His€results€from€a€breath€test€on€the€IntoximeterÏ3000€indicated€a€blood€alcohol€level€of€.17€of€one€percent.€€He€was€indicted€by€theÏRutherford€County€Grand€Jury€for€DUI€during€its€October€1994€session.€€TheÏindictment€returned€against€the€defendant€recites€June€30,€1994,€as€the€date€of€theÏoffense.× ƒ' ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€pled€not€guilty€and€a€jury€trial€was€held.€€After€the€juryÏwas€sworn,€the€prosecuting€attorney€read€the€indictment€as€though€it€stated€July€30,Ï1994,€as€the€date€of€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€corrected€the€attorney,Ïstating,€"Ladies€and€gentlemen€[of€the€jury],€let€me€make€one€correction€in€what€theÏAttorney€General€just€read.€€I€believe€he€said€30th€of€July.€€The€indictment€actuallyÏreads€30th€of€June."€€The€prosecuting€lawyer€responded€that€the€indictment€hadÏbeen€amended€"to€July,"€to€which€the€defendant's€lawyer€responded€that€he€wasÏunaware€of€any€amendment.€€A€bench€conference€was€then€held,€at€which€the€trialÍcourt€inquired€as€to€whether€the€defendant€had€also€been€charged€on€June€30,€1994.€ÏThe€defense€lawyer€stated€that,€to€the€best€of€his€knowledge,€there€was€only€the€oneÏcharge€against€his€client.€€At€that€point€the€court€said,€"I'm€going€to€allow€it"€and€theÏdefendant's€lawyer€simply€said,€"Yes,€sir."€€The€trial€proceeded€and€the€jury€convictedÏthe€defendant€of€a€first€offense€DUI€occurring€on€July€30,€1994.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€trial,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,Ïcomplaining€of€the€variance€between€the€original€indictment€and€the€proof€offered€atÏtrial.€€The€trial€court€denied€this€motion.€€The€defendant€did€not€file€a€motion€for€newÏtrial.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€now€complains€that€his€indictment€was€improperlyÏamended€and€that€his€conviction€ought€therefore€to€be€reversed€and€the€chargeÏagainst€him€dismissed.ÌÌà àà àTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€7(b)€states,€"An€indictment,€presentment€or€informationÏmay€be€amended€in€all€cases€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant.€€If€no€additional€orÏdifferent€offense€is€thereby€charged€and€no€substantial€rights€of€the€defendant€areÏthereby€prejudiced,€the€court€may€permit€an€amendment€without€the€defendant'sÍconsent€before€jeopardy€attaches."€€In€this€case,€the€jury€had€been€selected€andÏsworn€prior€to€the€amendment.€€Thus,€jeopardy€had€attached.€€òòState€v.€Knightóó,€616ÏS.W.2d€593,€595€(Tenn.€1981).€€The€only€way€the€indictment€could€properly€haveÏbeen€amended,€then,€was€with€the€defendant's€consent.€€However,€the€defendant€didÏnot€consent€to€the€amendment.€€The€court€did€not€ask€for€the€defendant's€consent,Ïand€the€defendant's€lawyer€was€given€no€opportunity€to€refuse€consent€before€theÏcourt€announced€that€it€was€going€to€allow€the€amendment.€€The€court€erred€in€thisÏregard.ÌÌà àà àHad€the€amendment€not€been€allowed,€there€would€have€existed€aÏvariance€between€the€defendant's€indictment€and€the€proof€presented€at€trial.€€ThatÏis,€the€indictment€would€have€alleged€that€the€offense€occurred€on€June€30,€1994,Ïwhile€the€proof€focussed€on€events€occurring€on€July€30,€1994.€€Such€a€varianceÏwould€not,€however,€automatically€entitle€the€defendant€to€relief.€€"Unless€a€specialÏdate€is€essential€or€time€is€critical€to€the€case,€the€time€of€an€offense€alleged€in€theÏindictment€is€not€material."€€òòState€v.€Hardinóó,€691€S.W.2d€578,€580€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Chanceóó,€778€S.W.2d€457€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€("€'TheÏactual€date€of€the€commission€of€the€offense€may€be€different€than€that€charged€in€theÏindictment€so€long€as€the€proof€establishes€that€the€offense€occurred€prior€to€theÍfinding€and€returning€of€the€indictment€.€.€.€.'€"€òòId.óó€at€462€(citation€omitted)).€€OurÏSupreme€Court€has€held€that€a€variance€between€an€indictment€and€the€proofÏconstitutes€reversible€error€only€when€the€variance€is€material€and€prejudices€theÏdefendant's€substantial€rights.€€òòState€v.€Mayesóó,€854€S.W.2d€638€(Tenn.€1993).€€TheÏvariance€is€not€fatal€where€"(1)€the€indictment€otherwise€sufficiently€informs€theÏdefendant€of€the€charge€against€him€such€that€he€will€not€be€misled€and€canÏadequately€plan€a€defense,€and€(2)€the€variance€is€such€that€the€defendant€cannot€beÏprosecuted€again€for€the€same€offense€due€to€double€jeopardy€principles."€€òòId.óó€at€641.€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€makes€no€argument€here€that€he€was€misled€by€the€dateÏon€the€indictment,€or€that€he€was€therefore€unable€to€adequately€plan€a€defense.€ÏIndeed,€the€scant€record€before€us€indicates€that€the€defendant€mounted€a€viableÏdefense€that€was€unaffected€by€the€confusion€over€the€date€of€the€offense.€€The€trialÏcourt€specifically€found€in€its€order€denying€the€defendant's€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€that€the€defendant's€case€had€òònotóó€been€prepared€around€the€incorrect€dateÏoriginally€contained€in€the€indictment.€€The€jury's€(apparent)€rejection€of€theÏdefendant's€version€of€the€facts€is€not€proof€that€the€defendant€was€either€misled€byÏthe€indictment€or€unable€to€adequately€plan€his€defense.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€had€the€indictment€been€left€unamended,€the€varianceÏwas€such€that€double€jeopardy€principles€would€have€protected€the€defendant€from€aÏsecond€prosecution.€€The€proof€presented€by€both€the€State€and€the€defendant€at€theÏtrial€of€this€matter€related€to€events€occurring€on€July€30,€1994.× ƒ( ××  ×€€Thus,€had€theÏdefendant€been€acquitted€and€had€the€State€then€tried€to€reindict€the€defendant€soÏthat€the€correct€date€was€alleged€in€the€new€indictment,€the€defendant€could€haveÏsuccessfully€pled€double€jeopardy.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Goinsóó,€705€S.W.2d€648€(Tenn.Ï1986)€(principles€of€double€jeopardy€will€prevent€a€subsequent€prosecution€unless€itÏis€clear€that€the€offenses€areÌ"€'wholly€separate€and€distinct.'€"€€òòId.óó€at€650€(citation€omitted)).Ìà àÌà àà àTherefore,€there€has€been€no€showing€that€the€defendant€would€haveÏbeen€prejudiced€by€the€variance€that€would€have€existed€had€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdenied€the€State's€requested€amendment€to€the€indictment.€€Nor€has€there€been€anyÏshowing€that€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€trial€court's€error€in€granting€theÏamendment.€€We€find,€therefore,€that€the€trial€court's€error€was€harmless,€and€theÏdefendant€is€not€entitled€to€any€relief.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a).€€Accordingly,€theÍdefendant's€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌJOSEPH€H.€WALKER€III,€Special€Judge