State Of Washington, Resp. v. Jamar P. Peeler, App.
73204-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2016Background
- Jamar Peeler was charged with second degree assault and second degree promoting prostitution; the information for promoting prostitution originally alleged he "attempt[ed] to advance and profit" from prostitution between March 7 and November 18, 2013.
- At trial the State presented witness testimony, including victim S.G.; after S.G.'s testimony the court adjourned for the day with the State indicating it would rest the next morning.
- The next morning, before the State formally rested, the prosecutor moved to amend the information to remove the word "attempt," asserting the evidence showed actual advancement and profit from prostitution.
- Peeler objected, arguing the amendment elevated the charge and prejudiced his defense by surprise; the trial court granted the amendment and the State later rested.
- Peeler was convicted of promoting prostitution in the second degree and received standard-range sentences; he appealed, arguing the amendment was improper and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Peeler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the per se rule barring amendment after the State rests applied | Amendment was sought before the State had rested, so per se rule does not apply | The State's case was effectively closed "for all intents and purposes," so per se rule should bar amendment | Court: Per se rule applies only after the State has formally rested; not applicable here |
| Whether amendment during State's case violated CrR 2.1(d) by prejudicing Peeler | Amendment did not prejudice Peeler’s substantial rights; it corrected wording to match proof | Amendment prejudiced defense by increasing exposure and surprising defense strategy | Court: No prejudice shown; defendant bears burden to show unfair surprise or inability to defend; amendment permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schaffer, 120 Wn.2d 616 (1993) (CrR 2.1(d) amendments during State’s case reviewed for prejudice and abuse of discretion)
- State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484 (1987) (per se rule: amendments after State rests violate article I, § 22 notice requirements)
- State v. Ziegler, 138 Wn. App. 804 (2007) (declining to extend per se rule to before State rests)
- State v. James, 108 Wn.2d 483 (1987) (possibility of harsher penalty alone does not establish prejudice)
- State v. Purdom, 106 Wn.2d 745 (1986) (prejudice requires unfair surprise or inability to prepare a defense)
Affirmed.