Fighting for Justice

Indictment vs. Jury Instructions:  What Changed and Why It Matters

What the Grand Jury Charged?  
The Franklin County Grand Jury charged Jason with intentional murder under Ala. Code § 13A-6-2, alleging that he intentionally caused the death of the victim by shooting her through the mouth.

 What the Jury Was Told It Could Convict On
After the close of evidence, the court instructed jurors that they could convict on reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide on a theory that Jason influenced or caused the victim to take her own life. 

 Why This Raises Constitutional Concern
A criminal conviction must remain tied to the charge returned by the grand jury.
A jury instruction cannot replace the act described in the indictment with a materially different act after the evidence closes.
If the defense is not given notice of the theory of conviction in time to prepare and defend, the fairness of the trial is compromised.  

 Authorities Referenced in the Record
Rule 13.5, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure
Ex parte Washington, 448 So.2d 404 (Ala. 1984)
Ex parte Hightower, 443 So.2d 1272 (Ala. 1983)
Ex parte McGriff, 908 So.2d 1024 (Ala. 2004)
Marsh v. State, 461 So.2d 51 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) 

 Summary
The indictment alleged intentional murder by shooting.
The jury was instructed on a different theory after the close of evidence.
Constitutional protections require notice and limit conviction to the charge returned by the grand jury.