State v. CampbellState v. Campbell
{¶ 1} Following an automobile accident, defendant-appellant, Christopher Campbell, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The traffic ticket charged him with violating
{¶ 2} Subsequently, the state moved to amend the charge from a violation of
{¶ 3} Campbell presents three assignments of error for review, which we will address out of order. His second assignment of error presents the most important issue and we, therefore, discuss it first. In that assignment of error, he states that the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the charge
{¶ 4}
{¶ 5} Other appellate courts in this state have ruled both ways. Some courts have held that because the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that the various subsections of
{¶ 6} Generally, courts cannot amend felony indictments to cure fatal omissions, since the Ohio Constitution requires that a grand jury issue them. However, law enforcement officers can issue misdemeanor complaints without the involvement of a grand jury. Consequently, courts may allow amendments of misdemeanor complaints if the defendant still has a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense and the amendments simply clarify or amplify in a manner consistent with the original complaint.
State v. Jackson
(1992),
{¶ 8} In
Mac Pherson,
supra, the court allowed an amendment from former
{¶ 9} It reasoned that the defendant was charged with a general violation of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The original traffic ticket was not ambiguous, in that it apprised him of the nature of the charge against him with a citation to the statute violated. Further, the defendant had ample time after the amendment in which to “prepare and defend against the complaint as amended.”
{¶ 10} The court went on to observe, “We note that were amendments to traffic complaints never permitted following the prosecution’s receipt of blood, breath or urine test results indicating alcohol content in .10 or greater, the viability of
{¶ 11} Similarly, in
Bosier,
supra, the court allowed an amendment from a violation of former
{¶ 12} “The purpose of a charging instrument, be it an indictment, information or complaint, is to inform the accused that a charge has been lodged against him and to provide him with an indication of the nature of that charge. * * * Appellant was charged with ‘driving under the influence.’ The subsections above define four ways to establish a DUI violation. Appellant was aware that he was charged with driving under the influence and was aware of the nature of the charge against him. The general offense with which he was charged remained the same. The conduct which led to the offenses, consumption of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle, remained the same.”
{¶ 13} The court went on to note that the appellant in that case was not prejudiced by the amendment. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence of breath testing, and he had full opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the test. Further, the trial court also offered him the opportunity for a continuance after allowing the amendment.
{¶ 14} We agree with the reasoning of the courts in
Mac Pherson
and
Bosier,
which is a logical extension of our holding in
Walz.
The ticket in this case charged Campbell generally with a violation of
{¶ 15} Further, though it cited the wrong subsection, the citation did indicate that he had taken a breath test and the result of that test. Though he objected to the amendment, Campbell was aware that he had taken a breath test, and he had ample time to prepare his defense. Ultimately, he agreed to a plea bargain that allowed two other charges against him to be dismissed. Under the circumstances, he was not prejudiced by the amendment.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in amending the citation from a violation of
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Campbell states that the trial court erred in amending the citation because he was not personally served with a copy of the amended citation as required by Traf.R. 3(E). He contends that the amendment was made orally and that he was never served with a charging instrument alleging a violation of
{¶ 19} However, the basic purpose of written notice is to apprise defendants of the charges against them.
State v. Jetter
(May 22, 1985), 1st Dist. No. C-840568,
{¶ 20} In this case, the police officer investigating the automobile accident personally served the ticket on Campbell at the scene. Even though it cited the wrong section of the Revised Code, it stated that Campbell had taken a breath test and that he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Consequently, Campbell was adequately advised of the offense with which he was charged. We hold that the amendment to the ticket, which did not change the nature or identity of the offense, did not require that the amended ticket be served on Campbell, who had received adequate notice of the charges. Accordingly, we overrule his first assignment of error.
{¶ 21} In his third assignment of error, Campbell states that the amendment of the charge violated his right to a speedy trial. He contends that the amendment occurred beyond the ninety-day period in which he should have been tried for a first-degree misdemeanor pursuant to
{¶ 22} We first note that we reject the state’s argument that Campbell has waived the issue because he failed to raise it below. The state has a mandatory duty to comply with the speedy-trial statutes.
State v. Singer
(1977),
{¶ 24}
Adams
and
Cooney
are distinguishable from the present case. We agree with the reasoning of the court in
State v. Butt
(Aug. 29,1997), 2d Dist. No. 16215,
{¶ 25} In this ease, a continuance requested by Campbell and a reasonable continuance due to the absence of the arresting officer tolled the time in which the state had to bring Campbell to trial.
Judgment affirmed.