State of West Virginia v. Jimmy Ray Bonnett Jr., 17-0092

Jimmy Ray Bonnett Jr. was charged by magistrate complaint (Mar. 8, 2015) with domestic battery; the complaint used statutory language from the 2011 version of the statute.
At trial (Mar. 29, 2016) Bonnett moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint cited a prior (2011) statutory formulation not in effect when the offense occurred.
The State moved to amend the complaint under Rule 6 to update statutory language to the 2014 version and to revise the factual allegation to match; the magistrate allowed the amendment before verdict.
The jury convicted Bonnett of the lesser-included offense of domestic assault; the magistrate denied a new trial and the circuit court affirmed the conviction, finding no prejudice from the amendment.
Bonnett appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals, arguing the original complaint failed to charge an offense and that the mid-trial amendment violated his substantial rights; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bonnett)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the magistrate complaint was so defective for using prior statutory language that dismissal was required	Complaint failed to set forth the offense charged (cited a statute not in effect), so it was void and dismissal was required	Complaint need only inform a magistrate that charges justify further proceedings; it was sufficient to proceed and could be amended	Court held the complaint was not so defective to require dismissal; criminal complaints are judged less strictly than indictments
Whether amendment of the complaint during trial under Rule 6 prejudiced Bonnett’s substantial rights	Amending a purportedly void complaint changed the outcome; without amendment conviction would be impossible, so substantial rights were violated	Amendment was allowed by Rule 6, did not charge a different offense, occurred before verdict, and did not prejudice Bonnett’s ability to defend	Court held the Rule 6 amendment was proper, did not prejudice substantial rights, and harmless-error doctrine applies

State v. Johnson, 219 W.Va. 697 (2006) (indictments upheld unless so defective they do not by any reasonable construction charge an offense)
State ex rel. Walls v. Noland, 189 W.Va. 603 (1993) (criminal complaints are informational and need only justify further proceedings)
State v. Wallace, 205 W.Va. 155 (1999) (indictment sufficiency standard: elements, fair notice, and double jeopardy protection)
Walker v. W.Va. Ethics Comm’n, 201 W.Va. 108 (1997) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for final orders; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for questions of law)
State v. Marple, 197 W.Va. 47 (1996) (plain error/substantial rights analysis: defendant need only show the verdict was actually affected by the error)