Case Name: PEOPLE v. JOHNSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-11
Citations: 4 N.Y. Crim. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. JOHNSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Criminal Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 591–596

Head Matter:
Supreme Court-General Term-fourth Department.
November, 1886.
PEOPLE v. JOHNSON.
Amendment of Indictment.
The defendant was indisted for seduction under promise of marriage of one Mary Olyphant,- at Wilna, in Jefferson county Upon the trial the court allowed an amendment of the indictment to conform to the proof, by substituí ng “Olivert” for “O.yphant,” and “Champion” for “Wilna.” Held, no error
The provisions of secton 803, Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing amendment of indictments, are constitutional.
Appeal by William B. Johnson, defendant, from a judgment of the Court of Sessions of Jefferson county, convicting him of seduction under promise of marriage, and from an order denying motion for a new trial made on the minutes.
The indictment charged the defendant with seducing, under promise of marriage, one “Mary Olyphant,” at the town of Wilna, Jefferson county. Upon the trial it appears that the name of the party seduced was “Mary Olivert,” and that the offense was committed in the town of Champion, in said county;
The district attorney thereupon moved to amend the indictment, under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by substituting the true name of the prosecutrix. This application was allowed by the trial court under the objection and exception of defendant’s counsel.-
Thomas F. Kearns,-for defendant, appellant.
F. 0. Emerson, district attorney, for the .people, respondent.
L There was no material variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proofs. But if there was it was cured by the amendment. The indictment alleges that the defendant seduced a female named Mary Olyphant, while the proof showed her name was Mary Olivert. The defendant’s counsel claims that this is a material variance. Under the strict prac- ■ tice of pleading at common law, it is possible that this contention would be correct. The rule there held was that if the names were sounded alike the variance would be disregarded. 1 Bish. Grim. Pro. 3d ed. §§ 688, 689; 1 Ghitty Grim. Law, 203, 216.
The statute of jeofails, passed to remedy the strict rules of common law pleading, provided that no indictment should be deemed invalid by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant. 3 N. Y. R. S. 6th ed. 1022, § 54.
As Mary Olivert was the person referred to in the indictment, and the only defect was in spelling the name, it was clearly an imperfection m matter of form only, which did not prejudice the defendant, and could therefore have been properly disregarded even before the passage of the Criminal Code. People v. Powers, 6 N. Y. 50; Fleming v. Powers, 27 Id. 329.
II. The rule of pleading is, however, much more liberal under the Code of Criminal Procedure than formerly. Code Grim. Pro. § 684. The purpose and intent of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to abrogate technical rules, and to substitute a simpler form and a more liberal interpretation. People v. Conroy, 97 N.Y. 62; People v. Menkin, 36 Hun, 90, 95. It is submitted that under its provisions (§§ 281, 284, 285, 686) the variance was not material, and could properly have been disregarded.
III. But if the difference in name be regarded as a material variance, it was cured by amendment. It is provided that where a variance shall appear between the allegations and' proofs, in the name of any person or thing, the court may in its judgment, if the defendant cannot be prejudiced in his defense on the merits, direct the indictment to be amended according to the proof. Gode Grim. Pro. § 293. The provision of the Code is valid and constitutional. While an indictment cannot be amended in matter of substance, it could be amended in matter of form even at common law. 1 Ohitty Crim. Law, 297. The object of the declaration of rights was to secure substantial privileges and benefits to persons accused of crime, not to require particular form. Accordingly a statute authorizing an amendment of an indictment by changing the name of person alleged to be injured is constitutional. The amendment authorized is one in form, not in substance. 1 Bish. Grim. Pro. 3d ed. §§ 97, 98; Comm. v. Holley, 3 Gray. 458; People v. Poucher, 30 Hun, 576, 578. The amendment of the indictment and proceedings ordered by the court was therefore proper.
IY. As to the other variance which is claimed, the indictment alleged the commission of the crime in the town of Wilna, Jefferson county, and the proof showed that it was committed in the town of Champion, Jefferson county. There is no rule of criminal pleading better settled than that allegations as to time and place are immaterial and need not be proved as laid, unless they are necessary ingredients in the offense. People v. Stockton, 50 Barb. 574; 2 Colby Crim. Law, 130; 1 Bish. Grim. Pro. 3d ed. §§ 370, 371; Arch. Crim. Pl. 4th Am. ed. 37, 38; 1 Barbour Grim. Law, 3d ed. 331; 1 Whar. Grim. Law, §§ 261, 599, 601; People v. Breese, 7 Cow. 429; Code Crim. Pro. § 284. As the allegation of place in this case' was not an ingredient in the offense, it follows that the variance was immaterial and was properly disregarded

Opinion:
A majority of the court (Hardin, P. J., and Boardman, J.) held the above section of the Code to be constitutional and that the indictment was properly amended, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed
Follett, J. dissented from the conclusions of the court, and delivered the following opinion: