In criminal cases, are the charges for which a defendant is found guilty a strict subset of the charges listed in the indictment?
<p>For instance, if I am arrested and charged for crimes <code>A, B, C</code>.</p>
<p>Then the only possible outcomes for which I can be found guilty are some combination of those crimes - such as <code>A, B, C</code> or <code>A, B</code> or just <code>A</code>, correct?</p>
<p>There would never be a scenario where the charges of <code>A, B, C</code> are dismissed mid-trial and I am convicted of <code>X, Y, Z</code> instead, right?</p>
<p>If the prosecutors want to pursue different charges against me, would they need to initiate a new case, or can they simply replace the original charges with new ones?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="canada-container">canada</a></p>
<h3>Amending the indictment</h3>
<p>Section 601 of the <em>Criminal Code</em> allows a court to amend the indictment to conform to the evidence that has come out in trial.</p>
<p>In making the decision to amend, the court should consider whether the accused has been prejudiced in their defence by any omission and whether the amendment can be made without any injustice being done. For example, if the accused had already started to present their defence, based on the understanding that they were charged with X, but in doing so they hampered a potential defence with respect to not-yet-charged Y, it would likely be an injustice to amend the indictment to charge Y. Usually, the amendment is to alter the particularization of the charge (e.g. broadening the charge from an assault of a specific individual to an assault of a &quot;female person&quot;: <em>R. v. Ferguson-Cadore</em>, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/jbv9c#par4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2020 ONSC 7094</a>).</p>
<p>But there is also limited case law suggesting it is okay to swap in an entirely new charge (<em>R. v. Bidawi</em>, 2018 ONCA 698; <em>R. v. Irwin</em> (1998) <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/6gq2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">123 C.C.C. (3d) 316</a>: &quot;I see no useful purpose in absolutely foreclosing an amendment to make a charge conform to the evidence simply because the amendment will substitute one charge for another&quot;).</p>
<p>So, the final convictions do not need to be a subset of the <em>initial</em> indictment, but where there is a deviation, it is because a subsequent amendment has been made.</p>
<h3>Lesser included offences</h3>
<p>There is also the possibility that one would be convicted of a &quot;lesser included&quot; offence. The indictment is understood to include offences that are lesser included offences (s. 662). E.g a charge for aggravated assault <em>includes</em> the possibility of conviction for plain assault even if not explicitly stated.</p>

united-states criminal-law criminal-procedure