(1) The trial court committed plain error with respect to its jury instructions on obtaining property by false pretenses; the instructions allowed the jury to convict the defendant of a theory not alleged in the indictment. The indictment alleged that the false pretense at issue was the filing a fire loss claim under the defendant’s homeowner insurance policy, when in fact the defendant had intentionally burned her own residence. In its instructions to the jury, the trial court did not specify the false pretense at issue. Although the State’s evidence supported the allegation in the indictment, it also supported other misrepresentations made by the defendant in connection with her insurance claim. The court concluded: “Where there is evidence of various misrepresentations which the jury could have considered in reaching a verdict for obtaining property by false pretense, we hold the trial court erred by not mentioning the misrepresentation specified in the indictment in the jury instructions.”

(2) The trial court committed plain error with respect to its jury instructions for insurance fraud. The indictment for insurance fraud alleged that the defendant falsely denied setting fire to her residence. The trial court’s instructions to the jury did not specify the falsity at issue. Following the same analysis applied with respect to the false pretenses charge, the court held that because the trial court’s instructions allowed the jury to convict the defendant of insurance fraud on a theory not alleged in the indictment, the instructions constituted plain error.