THE COURTS
[ 234 PA. CODE CH. 5 ]
Order Amending Rule 564 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; No. 484 Criminal Procedural Rules Doc.
[47 Pa.B. 185]
[Saturday, January 14, 2017]
Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 21st day of December, 2016, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 45 Pa.B. 7287 (December 26, 2015), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the amendments to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 564 are adopted, in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective December 21, 2017.
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES
PART F. Procedures Following a Case Held for Court Rule 564. Amendment of Information.
The court may allow an information to be amended [when there is a defect in form, the description of the offense(s), the description of any person or any property, or the date charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional or different offense], provided that the information as amended does not charge offenses arising from a different set of events and that the amended charges are not so materially different from the original charge that the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced. Upon amendment, the court may grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in the interests of justice.
Comment The rule was amended in 2016 to more accurately reflect the interpretation of this rule that has developed since it first was adopted in 1974. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 727 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1999). See also Commonwealth v. Beck, 78 A.3d. 656 (Pa. Super 2013); Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2009); Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Official Note: Rule 229 adopted February 15, 1974, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 564 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended December 21, 2016, effective December 21, 2017.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. [1477] 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the December 21, 2016 amendment regarding the standard for amendment published with the Court's Order at 47 Pa.B. 186 (January 14, 2017).
FINAL REPORT1
Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 564
Addition of Offenses to the Criminal Information On December 21, 2016, effective December 21, 2017, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court approved the amendment of Rule 564 (Amendment of Information) to more accurately reflect the interpretation of this rule that has developed since it first was adopted in 1974. Rule 564 provides that the court may allow an information to be amended as long as the amended information ''does not charge an additional or different offense.'' It was suggested by one of the Committee members that case law has interpreted the rule more broadly than a plain reading of the language would indicate.
Rule 564 was adopted as Rule 229 in 1974. Except for renumbering as part of the general reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2000, the language of the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its initial adoption. There has been a considerable body of case law interpreting whether amendments that add new offenses are permissible under the rule. As defined in these cases, the purpose of Rule 564 (or then-Rule 229) is to ensure that a defendant is fully apprised of the charges, and to avoid prejudice to the defendant by prohibiting the last minute addition of alleged criminal acts of which the defendant is uninformed. See, e.g. Commonwealth v. Lawton, 414 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 1979). Courts apply the rule allowing amendment of a defective information with an eye toward its underlying purposes and with a commitment to do justice rather than be bound by a literal or narrow reading of the procedural rules. Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied 927 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2007). In effecting this purpose, the courts employ the test of whether the crimes specified in the original information involved the same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in the amended information. If so, the defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding the alleged criminal conduct. However, if the amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the elements or defense to the amended crime are materially different from the elements or defense to the crime originally charged, so that the defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then amendment is not permissible. Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2009). See also, Commonwealth v. Beck, 78 A.3d 656 (Pa. Super 2013). Factors that the trial court must consider in determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by an amendment include: (1) whether the amendment changes the factual scenario supporting the charges; (2) whether the amendment adds new facts previously unknown to the defendant; (3) whether the entire factual scenario was developed during a preliminary hearing; (4) whether the description of the charges changed with the amendment; (5) whether a change in defense strategy was necessitated by the amendment; and (6) whether the timing of the Commonwealth's request for amendment allowed for ample notice and preparation. Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 897 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 2006), citing Commonwealth v. Grekis, 601 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 1992).
The most recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case dealing with Rule 564 is Commonwealth v. Brown, 727 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1999), which held that, since the purpose of the information is to apprise the defendant of the charges against him so that he may have a fair opportunity to prepare a defense, an amendment should be precluded only when the variance between the original and the new charges prejudices a defendant by, for example, rendering defenses which might have been raised against the original charges ineffective with respect to the substituted charges. In this case, an amendment of the information changing the charge from one of sexual assault using force to one of sexual assault on an unconscious person was not proper because it prejudiced the defendant due to the differences in potential defenses available.
Based on the foregoing history and analysis, the Committee concluded that the language of the rule did not accurately reflect the correct standards, as developed by the courts, for allowance of amendment of the information. Therefore, the language of the rule has been amended to reflect that a court may allow the information to be amended provided that the amended information does not ''charge offenses arising from a different set of events and that the amended charges are not so materially different from the original charge such that the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced'' and cross-references to the pertinent case law have been added to the Comment.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 17-46. Filed for public inspection January 13, 2017, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
