Opinion
July 12, 1989
Appeal from the Yates County Court, Dugan, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant's assertion, the court did not amend the indictment in its instructions to the jury. It is not essential that the indictment include the victim's name as an element, so long as the indictment gives defendant sufficient notice of the charges to allow him to prepare his defense (see, People v Trimm, 29 A.D.2d 83; People v Cruz, 285 App. Div. 1076). In this case, the indictment gave defendant sufficient notice of the charges. If defendant had desired the name of the victim to which each separate count of the indictment referred, he could have requested a bill of particulars. This he did not do. The proof in the case was that defendant committed sodomy with two young men. The fact that the trial court instructed the jury that count one would apply to "A" and count two would apply to "B" did not in any way alter the theory of the People at trial (see, People v Ramos, 134 A.D.2d 295, 296, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1010).
We have reviewed defendant's other arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.