People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489 (1988)

A conviction will be reversed if the proof at trial varies so significantly from the indictment as to deprive the defendant of fair notice of the charges or usurp the Grand Jury’s power.

Summary

This case addresses when a variance between the indictment and the proof presented at trial warrants reversal of a conviction. The Court of Appeals held that in People v. Grega, there was no impermissible variance because the complainant’s testimony aligned with the indictment’s allegation of physical force. However, in People v. Roberts, the prosecution’s theory of strangulation at trial differed so significantly from the indictment’s claim that the victim was struck, thus warranting a new trial.

Facts

In Grega, the defendant was indicted for rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, and unlawful imprisonment, alleging forcible compulsion through physical force. At trial, the complainant testified about being physically restrained, handcuffed, and bound before the sexual offenses occurred. The defendant claimed consent. In Roberts, the defendant was indicted for manslaughter for striking the victim, causing her death. At trial, medical testimony suggested the victim died from strangulation, not a blow. The indictment specified the defendant struck the victim in the neck area.

Procedural History

In Grega, the County Court convicted the defendant on all counts. The Appellate Division reversed, citing an impermissible change in the theory of prosecution based on jury instructions regarding ‘express or implied threats.’ In Roberts, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and grand larceny. The Appellate Division reversed the manslaughter conviction, finding the trial theory of strangulation inconsistent with the Grand Jury’s finding.

Issue(s)

1. In Grega, whether the trial court’s instruction on both statutory definitions of forcible compulsion (physical force and express or implied threats), when the indictment only charged physical force, constituted an impermissible change in the theory of prosecution requiring reversal.

2. In Roberts, whether the People’s presentation of proof at trial, contradicting the factual allegations of the manslaughter count of the indictment as to the cause of death, violated the defendant’s right to fair notice and the Grand Jury’s authority.

Holding

1. In Grega, No, because the jury’s verdict could only have been based on evidence of actual physical force as charged in the indictment.

2. In Roberts, Yes, because the variance between the indictment’s allegation of striking the victim and the trial evidence suggesting strangulation deprived the defendant of fair notice and usurped the Grand Jury’s authority.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that an indictment serves three key purposes: providing notice to the defendant, preventing prosecutorial overreach, and avoiding double jeopardy. In Grega, the proof at trial aligned with the indictment’s allegations, so the defendant was not deprived of notice. While the trial court erred by instructing the jury on both definitions of forcible compulsion, the error was harmless because the evidence supported only the theory of physical force. The court stated, “While the trial court should not have charged both statutory definitions of forcible compulsion, but instead should have tailored its instructions to the case before it, on this record we conclude that the additional portion of the charge had no potential for prejudicing defendant, and thus was harmless error.” In Roberts, however, the People’s evidence of strangulation directly contradicted the indictment’s claim that the victim was struck, violating the defendant’s right to prepare a defense. “Having specified in the indictment, and later in their answer to discovery, that defendant struck the victim, thereby causing her death, the People were not then free to present proof at trial that virtually ruled out that theory as the cause of death and substituted another one.” The court emphasized that the factual allegations related to the cause of death were not extraneous and that the defendant was prejudiced because he was unprepared to defend against a charge of strangulation. Further, the evidence of strangulation was evidence of murder, the crime for which the Grand Jury had refused to indict.