State v. Fisher, 2022 Ohio 1363

Fisher was indicted for receiving stolen property (a 2014 John Deere "Gator") and waived a jury, electing a bench trial. Other related charges were dismissed.
The state moved to amend the indictment to enlarge the alleged time period to "October 18, 2019 through and including November 21, 2019." Fisher objected; the trial court granted the amendment, continued the case, and reopened discovery.
The bill of particulars mirrored the amended dates. Evidence: victim last saw the Gator on Oct. 18 and reported it stolen Oct. 22; detectives traced the Gator to Robert Powell (the thief) who sold/traded it to Fisher; Fisher denied buying anything when interviewed Nov. 13; Rich testified he bought the Gator from Fisher for $5,000 on Nov. 14–15; police located the Gator at Rich’s on Nov. 22.
At the bench trial the court found Fisher guilty of receiving stolen property but reduced the offense to a lesser fifth-degree felony because value was not proven; Fisher was sentenced to community control.
Fisher appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s allowance of the indictment amendment and (2) the denial of his motion to disclose grand jury transcripts. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the state to amend the indictment period	Amendment only enlarged the date range to conform to evidence; dates are not elements and amendment complied with Crim.R. 7(D)	Amendment functionally altered elements/burden, was duplicitous, and prejudiced Fisher’s defense	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; changing dates did not alter crime identity, was not duplicitous, and Fisher suffered no prejudice (continuance and bill of particulars provided notice)
Whether the trial court erred by denying disclosure of grand jury transcripts	No need to disclose; grand jury secrecy applies and defendant failed to show particularized need or that ends of justice require disclosure	Amendment created ambiguity about probable-cause basis for the indictment, so transcripts were needed to assess grand jury finding	Affirmed — denial proper; Fisher did not show a particularized need or that non-disclosure would deprive him of a fair adjudication

State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139 (1981) (establishes the "particularized need" standard for disclosure of grand jury transcripts and that secrecy may be pierced only when ends of justice require it)
United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892 (2d Cir. 1980) (defines duplicity as joining separate offenses in a single count)
United States v. Kakos, 483 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (explains jury-unanimity concern when an indictment is duplicitous)