State v. Heward, 375 Or 449

Defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree robbery after taking merchandise from a Fred Meyer and a Walmart and threatening store employees. 1
The indictment alleged defendant used and threatened physical force and represented that he was armed, but it did not allege he threatened the immediate use of physical force. 2
On the first day of trial, the state moved to amend the indictment to add the missing word "immediate," claiming the omission was a scrivener's error. 3
The trial court allowed the amendment without resubmitting the case to the grand jury, concluding the indictment was defective in form. 4
The jury convicted defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the amendment ruling. 5
The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding the omission was a substantive defect and the amendment was not harmless. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the omitted "immediate" allegation a defect in form or substance? 7	State said the omission was a clerical error and form defect.	Heward said the omission removed an essential robbery element.	The omission was substantive, not formal. 8
Could the prosecutor amend the indictment without grand jury resubmission? 9	State said Article VII section 5(6) allowed amendment of form defects.	Heward said essential-element omissions require grand jury review.	No; grand jury resubmission was required. 10
Was the amendment harmless error? 11	State said the verdict would have been the same.	Heward said amendment enabled the state's main robbery theory.	No; the error was not harmless. 12

State v. Haji, 366 Or 384 (Or. 2020) (indictment defects essential to the charge are substantive, not formal 13)
State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 (Or. 2008) (form amendments are allowed when the original indictment already states all essential facts 14)
State v. Wimber, 315 Or 103 (Or. 1992) (framework for evaluating amendments to indictments with nonapparent defects 15)
State v. Moyer, 76 Or 396 (Or. 1915) (omission of an essential allegation is a substantive defect that cannot be amended without the grand jury 16)
State v. Woodson, 315 Or 314 (Or. 1993) (amendment permitted where original indictment already contained facts supporting the charged offense 17)
State v. Burleson, 342 Or 697 (Or. 2007) (grand jury serves as a check on prosecutorial power 18)
State v. Wall, 374 Or 407 (Or. 2025) (district attorneys may present indictments but cannot control the grand jury's inquiry 19)
State v. Reinke, 354 Or 98 (Or. 2013) (explains Oregon's constitutional grand jury requirement and amendment history 20)
State v. Williams, 374 Or 648 (Or. 2025) (robbery differs from theft by extortion because robbery requires an immediate threat 21)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (Or. 2003) (constitutional harmless-error standard asks whether there is little likelihood the error affected the verdict 22)