STATE v. BROWN (2026)

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED

The State of Louisiana (“State”) seeks supervisory review of the trial court's February 23, 2026 ruling, which denied the State the opportunity to amend the bill of indictment in this first-degree rape case. For the reasons that follow, we find that the trial court erred. Accordingly, the State's writ application is granted and the trial court's ruling is reversed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July, 24, 2025, a grand jury indicted Tevin R. Brown (“Defendant”) with two counts of first-degree rape. Prior to the start of the trial on February 23, 2026, the State amended the range of dates of the offense in the bill of information. The defense objected, arguing that it was not an agreed upon amendment and that the amendment was made on the morning of trial. The trial court disallowed the amendment, and the State's emergency writ application followed.

The record reflects that the original bill of information provided that the rapes occurred between August 14, 2013 and August 14, 2014. The State amended the bill of information to state that the rapes occurred between October 4, 2013 and August 14, 2014. The State submits that the amendment was to ensure that the Defendant's age was fifteen years or older at all times listed in the bill of indictment.

DISCUSSION

The State argues that the trial court erroneously rejected their amendment to the bill of indictment, as the amendment was made prior to the commencement of trial and because the Defendant suffers no prejudice. The State also asserts that the amendment changes nothing about the nature of the charges against the Defendant. We find merit in the State's argument.

As this Court recognized in State v. Reel, 2010-1737, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/12), 126 So.3d 506, 514:

In accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 487, the district attorney has complete authority to amend indictments, both as to form and substance, at any time prior to trial. State v. Neslo, 433 So.2d 73 (La. 1983). Where the defense can show prejudice as a result of the amendment, the court should grant a motion for a continuance. La. C.Cr.P. art. 489.

In the present case, we find that the amendment of the dates of the offense is not an essential element of the charge of first-degree rape. It is clearly only an amendment as to form. Additionally, we find that the amended bill of information will not prejudice the Defendant in defending against these charges. Accordingly, the State was within its authority to amend the bill of indictment.

For the foregoing reasons, the State's writ application is granted and the trial court's February 23, 2026 ruling is hereby reversed.

JUDGE KAREN K. HERMAN