Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that there was a variance between the allegations in the second count of the indictment and the People’s proof at trial. The second count, charging robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), alleges that defendant “displayed what appeared to be a pistol, revolver or other firearm, to wit a rifle.” Proof at trial that the firearm displayed by defendant was a sawed-off rifle did not vary from that allegation so as to violate “defendant’s right to fair notice of the charges or his right to have those charges preferred by the Grand Jury rather than by the prosecutor at trial” (People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489 , 496; cf., People v Alexander, 42 Misc 2d 927 , 929-930, affd 24 AD2d 934 ). Nor did the reference by County Court to the sawed-off rifle in its instructions to the jury on the second count result in an impermissible amendment of the indictment (see, People v Spann, 56 NY2d 469 , 473).
The court properly denied the request of defendant for a missing witness charge with respect to two men who were with
Cases cited
- People of State of New York v. Grega 72 NY2d 489 at 496 p. 946
- People v. Alexander 42 Misc 2d 927 at 929-930 p. 946
- People v. Spann 56 NY2d 469 at 473 p. 946
- People v. Macana 84 NY2d 173 at 177 p. 947
- People v. Gonzalez 68 NY2d 424 at 427-428 p. 947
- People v. Batson 219 AD2d 538 at 539 p. 947
- People v. Rivera 160 AD2d 267 at 271 p. 947