Summary
In People v. Cruz, 285 App. Div. 1076, 139 N.Y.S.2d 722, charging sodomy, assault, and endangering the health or life of a child, the indictment incorrectly named the child's mother as the injured party, and the trial court denied a motion to amend by substituting the correct name which was different as to both Christian name and surname of the mother and child — two different persons.
Summary of this case from People v. JonesOpinion
April 16, 1955.
Appeal from County Court, Kings County.
Graciela Jiminez is the name of the child's mother, and it is obvious that the Grand Jury did not intend to refer to her as the person injured. In denying the motion to amend, and dismissing the indictment on his own motion, the learned County Judge stated that he was without authority to allow the amendment. Order reversed on the law and indictment reinstated. We do not decide, on the record presented, whether the County Court was required to grant the motion to amend. We consider it advisable to state, however, that we see no impediment to an amendment of the indictment by the trial court to correct an obvious error in the statement of the name of a person therein referred to, if the amendment is made according to the proof and if the rights of the defendant will not be prejudiced. (See Code Crim. Pro., §§ 281, 293; People v. Johnson, 104 N.Y. 213; People v. Lamm, 292 N.Y. 224, and People v. Geyer, 196 N.Y. 364.) Although the name of the person injured should be stated to identify the crime charged, to permit a defendant to prepare his defense, and to prevent double jeopardy ( People v. Devinny, 227 N.Y. 397; People v. Corbalis, 178 N.Y. 516), it is a detail which serves merely to describe the crime and does not form a part of the substance or body of the offense charged ( People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Lamm, supra). Allegations as to such details may in a proper case be amended to prevent the escape of guilty persons, and a miscarriage of justice through inconsequential technicalities. ( People v. Geyer, supra.) While it may be that the proof submitted by the People was not sufficient, at the time when the motion to amend was made, to justify, or require, the granting of the motion, it was, nevertheless, error to dismiss the indictment of the court's own motion. The dismissal does not appear to have been directed pursuant to the authority granted by section 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, in our opinion, it may not be sustained thereunder, or as an exercise of a power inherent in the court. (Cf. People v. Glen, 173 N.Y. 395.) Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.