118 A.3d 894
Md.2015Background
- Counts was indicted on multiple counts arising from a residential burglary; Count Four charged misdemeanor theft of property valued "less than $1,000."
- On the morning of trial, the State moved to amend Count Four to allege felony theft ("at least $1,000 but less than $10,000"); defense objected because the amendment elevated the offense to a felony and increased potential exposure.
- The trial court permitted the amendment over objection; Counts was tried and convicted of felony theft (and other offenses), and sentenced accordingly.
- Counts appealed solely arguing the trial court erred in allowing the amendment; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether the amendment changed the character of the offense under Maryland Rule 4-204 and, if so, whether allowing it without defendant’s consent was reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Counts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did amending theft charge from "less than $1,000" to "at least $1,000 but less than $10,000" change the character of the offense under Md. Rule 4-204? | Amendment did not change elements—only penalty; value is relevant to punishment, not an element to be pleaded. | Amount of value for felony theft is an element and must be alleged; amendment added an element and changed the offense from misdemeanor to felony. | Yes. The value threshold for felony theft is an element; substituting felony for misdemeanor changed the character of the offense. |
| Was the trial court permitted to allow that amendment over defendant’s objection? | The court may amend charging documents; this amendment was procedural/penal and not substantive. | Rule 4-204 requires consent if the amendment changes the character of the offense; Counts did not consent. | No. Allowing the amendment without consent violated Rule 4-204. |
| Was the Rule 4-204 violation harmless error? | Any error was harmless because evidence proved the higher value. | The Rule deems such amendments prejudicial per se when they change the offense’s character without consent. | Not harmless. The amendment prejudiced defendant as a matter of law; reversal required. |
| Remedy required? | (State implicitly) affirm conviction because evidence supported felony finding. | Vacate felony conviction and reinstate conviction/sentence on original misdemeanor charge. | Reverse Court of Special Appeals; vacate felony theft conviction and remand to enter judgment/sentence on originally charged misdemeanor theft. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. State, 316 Md. 429 (holding that value threshold for felonious theft is an element that must be alleged and proved)
- Johnson v. State, 358 Md. 384 (an amendment that charges a different act or changes the character of the offense requires defendant consent under Rule 4-204)
- Spratt v. State, 315 Md. 680 (value is an element of the greater property-based offense and must be charged and proved)
- Spitzinger v. State, 340 Md. 114 (felony theft requires proof of value at or above statutory threshold and must be charged)
- Jupiter v. State, 328 Md. 635 (the thing taken must have some value, but the case does not negate that statutory value thresholds are elements)