State v. Heward, 341 Or. App. 381

Defendant, Heward, was convicted of two counts of second-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree theft in Linn County, arising from separate incidents at Fred Meyer and Walmart stores.
The two incidents involved similar alleged conduct: theft of merchandise, confrontation by loss prevention, and threatening statements or gestures by Heward.
Prior to trial, Heward moved to sever the indictments for the two incidents; the trial court denied severance, finding the cases sufficiently related and not unduly prejudicial.
The trial court permitted the prosecution to amend two counts in the indictment to correct a scrivener's error by adding the word “immediate” as required by statute.
Heward challenged several aspects on appeal: denial of severance, the indictment amendment, the prosecution's statements during closing, and a jury instruction defect on the mental state required for the value element of second-degree theft.
The appellate court reviewed all five assignments of error and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of Motion to Sever	Joinder was proper: incidents were similar, close in time, evidence distinct for each	Joinder prejudiced Heward, evidence from one incident not admissible for the other	No substantive prejudice, severance denied
Amendment to Indictment	Correction was a scrivener’s error, not a substantive change; accurately reflected grand jury intent	Amendment added essential element, undermining grand jury’s constitutional function	Amendment proper as a correction of form
Prosecutor’s Closing Statement on Standard	Emphasized jury should not compromise but fully consider evidence for each incident	Misstated the reasonable-doubt standard in closing	Not plainly improper or prejudicial
Failure to Instruct on Mental State	Omission was error but not grave; evidence supported finding of criminal negligence	Lack of instruction on mental state for value of property in theft charge required reversal	Declined discretion to review the error

State v. Delaney, 370 Or 554 (defendant must demonstrate case-specific substantial prejudice for severance)
State v. Long, 320 Or 361 (distinction between amendments of form and substance for indictments)
State v. Burnett, 185 Or App 409 (an indictment must be based on facts found by the grand jury; amendment cannot add essential elements)
State v. Tidwell, 259 Or App 152 (generalized prejudice arguments insufficient for severance)
State v. Horton, 327 Or App 256 (plain-error review for omission of mental-state jury instruction depends on case specifics)