An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA04-906

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 19 April 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:
                                Robeson County
J.D.                                No. 04 J 26

    Appeal by juvenile from order entered 2 March 2004 by Judge James Gregory Bell in Robeson County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Marc X. Sneed, for the State.

    Duncan B. McCormick for juvenile-appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

     The above juvenile (“appellant”) appeals from an order adjudicating him as a delinquent juvenile for engaging in an affray. The court placed him on probation.
    Appellant contends the court erred (1) by denying his motion to quash the petition on the ground the petition failed to identify the other person involved in the affray, and (2) by allowing the prosecution to amend the petition to identify the other person.
    The record shows that the juvenile petition originally charged that appellant “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did make an affray to the terror and disturbance of other citizens at Carroll Middle School, 300 Bailey Road, Lumberton, N.C. 28358 a public place. At that public place the defendant and another student did assault and strike each other by fighting in a classroom with otherstudents.” At the call of the case for hearing, appellant moved to quash the petition on the ground it failed to identify the other student involved. After hearing the prosecutor explain that the other student was not identified because another judge in the district had stated that another juvenile's name should never appear on a juvenile petition, the court denied the motion. Nonetheless, the prosecutor moved to amend the petition to identify the other student and the court allowed the motion.
    Appellant argues the failure to identify the other student caused the petition not to clearly apprise appellant of the conduct for which he was being charged. He argues the amendment of the petition violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2400 (2003) because it changed the nature of the offense charged.
    We conclude that both arguments lack merit. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1802 (2003) provides that a juvenile petition shall contain the name of the juvenile and facts invoking the court's jurisdiction but “shall not contain information on more than one juvenile.” This statute further provides that a “petition in which delinquency is alleged shall contain a plain and concise statement, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserting facts supporting every element of a criminal offense . . . with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the juvenile of the conduct which is the subject of the allegation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2400 allows the court to “permit a petition to be amended when the amendment does not change the nature of the offense alleged.”
    An affray is defined as “a fight between two or more personsin a public place so as to cause terror to the people.” In re Drakeford, 32 N.C. App. 113, 118, 230 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1977). Here, the name of the other student is a fact of an evidentiary nature which did not need to be pleaded. By alleging the date, time, place, nature of the offense, and facts supporting the above elements of the offense, the petition sufficiently apprised appellant of the charge so he could prepare a defense. The amendment of the petition to identify the other student by name did not change the nature of the offense alleged.
    The order is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***