Writ granted. We find the appellate court erred in reversing the trial courts denial of defendants motion to quash. Code of Criminal Procedure article 473 requires a charging document to include the name of the person injured when their name is “substantial and not merely descriptive.” However, in the event the name of the victim is not known, La. C.Cr.P. art. 473 provides, “it is sufficient to so state and to describe him as far as possible.” In this case, the identity of the victims is “substantial and not merely descriptive,” however their names are not known. The state has admitted as much and has provided a bill of particulars and open-file discovery to defendant. See State v. Pichler, 355 So. 2d 1302, 1304 (La. 1978), (finding the grant of open file discovery to the defense to be “significant in resolving whether or not defendant was prejudiced in preparation of his defense by an insufficient recitation of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”) Accordingly, we find the appellate court erred in finding defendant is prejudiced by the states failure to provide the names of the victims. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed, the trial courts ruling denying defendants motion to quash is reinstated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Genovese, J., dissents.
Griffin, J., dissents.