R.C. 2925.03 Interpretation
In State v. Smith (1983), 14 Ohio App.3d 366, 14 Ohio B. 470, 471 N.E.2d 795, the court held that an amendment to an R.C. 2925.03 complicity indictment to include the amount of drugs involved did not change the name or identity of the crime.
The original indictment read: "The defendant did knowingly aid or abet David Dillon in committing a violation of R.C. 2925.03, to wit: Trafficking in Marijuana."
The trial court subsequently allowed the state to amend the indictment to state the amount of drugs involved.
The appellate court framed the issue as whether in a complicity indictment the addition of the amount sold or offered to be sold by the principal constitutes a change in the name or identity of the crime charged. Id. at 368.
The court concluded Headley was not controlling because it involved the type of drug, whereas the Smith indictment involved the amount of a previously specified drug.
The court stated that "the degree of the offense or severity of the penalty does not necessarily control the question of a change in the name or identity of the crime or whether a material element has been omitted." Id. at 369.