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

A trial court does not constructively amend an indictment in violation of a defendant’s rights when the jury is instructed that they can find the defendant guilty even if the stolen property differs from what was specified in the indictment, provided the nature of the property is not a material element of the crime.

Summary

The defendant was indicted for first-degree robbery, accused of stealing jewelry and money. At trial, he testified he stole cocaine instead. The trial court instructed the jury they could convict even if the stolen items were drugs. The New York Court of Appeals held that this instruction did not constructively amend the indictment because the specific type of property stolen isn’t a material element of robbery under New York law, as long as ‘property’ was indeed stolen. The court emphasized that the discrepancy arose from the defendant’s own testimony.

Facts

Shaniqua Montgomery reported that the defendant stole jewelry and money from her apartment on October 18, 1979, while displaying what appeared to be a firearm. At trial, Montgomery testified the defendant took two watches, gold chains, and $70. The defendant testified he was seeking heroin from Montgomery and forcibly took cocaine from her purse instead, denying the theft of money or jewelry.

Procedural History

The Bronx County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for first-degree robbery. At trial, the court instructed the jury that they could find the defendant guilty even if they found he had stolen drugs rather than “money or jewelry.” The jury acquitted the defendant of first-degree robbery but convicted him of third-degree robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court constructively amended the indictment by instructing the jury that they could find the defendant guilty of robbery even if they found that he had stolen drugs rather than “money or jewelry” as specified in the indictment, thereby violating the defendant’s right to indictment by a grand jury under the New York State Constitution.

Holding

No, because the particular nature of the property stolen is not a material element of the crime of robbery under New York law, and the discrepancy between the indictment and the proof at trial was caused by the defendant’s own testimony.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the indictment adequately informed the defendant of the charges against him, satisfying due process and fair notice requirements. The indictment specified the date, victim, and the use of a weapon in forcibly stealing property. The court emphasized that under CPL 200.70, subd 1, amendments to indictments are permissible for matters of form, time, place, and names, provided they do not change the prosecution’s theory or prejudice the defendant. Robbery, as defined in Penal Law Article 160, merely requires the forcible stealing of “property,” broadly defined in Penal Law § 155.00(1). The court noted that the defendant’s own testimony created the discrepancy between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial. The court stated, “Most importantly, it must be remembered that, unlike the cases relied upon by the defendant (e.g., Stirone v United States, 361 US 212; People v Geyer, 196 NY 364), any discrepancy between the indictment and the proof at trial was caused by the defendant voluntarily taking the stand in his own behalf and admitting that he committed a different version of the robbery than was alleged in the indictment.” The court concluded that the charge to the jury provided no basis for overturning the conviction of third-degree robbery.