Villagren

After a jury had found appellant guilty of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)) and one count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)), the trial court sentenced appellant to state prison. Appellant ap peals from the judgment of conviction. He contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution, after the jury had been selected, to amend the information to allege a count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. He also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions on all four counts, and further claims reversible error based on juror misconduct. For reasons which shall be explained below, we reject each of these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Facts:

Presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence, as we must (People v. Henderson (1977) 19 Cal.3d 86, 97 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 560 P.2d 1180 ]; People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 379 , 461 P.2d 659 ]), the relevant facts adduced at trial are as follows: At approximately 12:30 a.m. on November 19, 1978, a group of six people,…