State v. Rhodus, 2016 Ohio 7292

Appellant Vicki Rhodus, a registered nurse at Toledo Hospital, removed dilaudid from the automated Pyxis medication machine on nine occasions in Aug–Sept 2012. None of the removals were administered to patients; seven entries were recorded as "wasted," two had no disposition recorded.
She was indicted on one count (later expanded to nine counts) of theft of drugs under R.C. 2913.02(A)(3)/(B)(6) (fourth-degree felonies), alleging she knowingly obtained controlled substances by deception.
Before trial the state sought to amend the indictments to add an alternative theory under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) (obtaining property beyond the scope of consent); the court initially denied the amendment and the bench trial proceeded.
After presentation of evidence and at close of trial the court allowed the state’s requested amendment to add the (A)(2) theory, afforded defense the opportunity to present additional evidence (none offered), and found Rhodus guilty on all nine counts under both theories.
Rhodus was sentenced to three years of community control and appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by amending the indictments (changing the identity of the crime) and (2) she should have been notified of a right to a new trier of fact after the amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rhodus)	Held
Whether allowing amendment to add R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) changed the identity of the crime in violation of Crim.R. 7(D)	Amendment did not change the name or identity of the theft offense; it pleaded an alternative theory supported by the same factual allegations	Amendment changed the elements of the offense and thus altered the identity of the crime, prejudicing defense	Court held amendment was proper under Crim.R. 7(D); it did not change the identity and did not prejudice appellant
Whether defendant was entitled to notice/right to a new trier of fact after amendment in a bench trial	No new jury waiver or new trier required; court offered opportunity to reopen for further evidence and defense declined	Amendment required notifying/allowing discharge of the trier of fact (judge) or new waiver; failure to do so was error	Court held no abuse of discretion; no rule requires a new jury waiver or new trier in this context and appellant did not demonstrate prejudice

No officially reported (bluebook) cases with reporter citations are relied upon in the opinion; the court discussed unpublished/appellate district decisions but none with official reporter citations were cited.