Com. v. Vaughn, A., 2179 MDA 2015

On Feb. 12, 2013 a confidential informant (C.I.) bought three bags of heroin from Alphonso Vaughn at his residence; a follow-up purchase of 50 bags was arranged for Feb. 13. The Feb. 12 sale formed the basis for a search warrant executed Feb. 13.
During execution of the warrant, Vaughn resisted, was tasered, and admitted he had heroin; police recovered 62 bags of heroin and $258 (including prerecorded buy money) from his person.
Vaughn was charged with PWID, conspiracy to commit PWID, simple possession, possession of paraphernalia, and resisting arrest. At the preliminary hearing a detective testified about the Feb. 12 transaction but the C.I. did not testify.
Commonwealth moved to amend the information to substitute a PWID count tied to the Feb. 12 sale (previously not charged). The court granted the amendment, allowed admission of the C.I.’s testimony, and granted a 21‑day continuance (Vaughn later had ~482 days before the retrial).
Vaughn represented himself at two trials; convicted both times. This Court previously vacated the first sentence for a deficient waiver colloquy; after the second trial Vaughn received an aggregate 110–300 month sentence and appealed, raising two issues about the amendment and Rule 404(b) notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in permitting Commonwealth to amend the information to add PWID based on Feb. 12 sale	Commonwealth: amendment was proper under Pa.R.Crim.P. 564 because it did not charge a different offense and notice/support existed	Vaughn: amendment changed factual scenario, added new facts (requiring C.I. testimony), prejudiced his defense and deprived time to investigate	Court: amendment proper; no prejudice—same factual scenario, facts were developed at preliminary hearing, Vaughn had adequate time to prepare
Whether admission of C.I. testimony constituted improper Pa.R.E. 404(b) propensity evidence without reasonable notice	Commonwealth: C.I. testimony related to a charged crime (Feb. 12 sale) not extrinsic bad-act evidence; reasonable notice was provided	Vaughn: C.I. testimony was other-act evidence admitted without required Rule 404(b) notice because identity/statements were previously withheld	Court: C.I. testimony was not improper 404(b) evidence and Vaughn received reasonable notice; admission was proper

Grekis v. Commonwealth, 601 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 1992) (amendment rules should be applied to achieve justice and avoid narrow proceduralism)
Mentzer v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Rule 564 aims to fully apprise defendant and avoid last‑minute additions that prejudice defense)
Mosley v. Commonwealth, 585 A.2d 1057 (Pa. Super. 1991) (broader test for propriety of amendments than literal rule language)
Sinclair v. Commonwealth, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006) (no prejudice where added charge arises from same basic elements and factual situation)
Veon v. Commonwealth, 109 A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factors to evaluate prejudice from amendments)
Bricker v. Commonwealth, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (amendment during trial that changes sentencing exposure/defense can be prejudicial)
DeSumma v. Commonwealth, 559 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1989) (amendment adding unanticipated victims at last hour can violate rule and prejudice defendant)