accused to prepare defense in Illinois

1980We noted in Berland , for example, that a clear specification of charges would enable the accused to prepare a defense and would protect him from double jeopardy. ( People v. Berland (1978), 74 Ill.2d 286, 312 .) The same is equally true here.

1980(People v. Berland (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 286, 312 .) The same is equally true here.

2024Failure to comply with discovery requirements “does not require a reversal absent a showing of surprise or undue prejudice. [Citation.] The burden of showing surprise or prejudice is upon the defendant.” People v. Cortez, 361 Ill.

2022App. 3d 697, 704 , 610 N.E.2d 738, 743 (1993). “[I]f ‘the issue is one of probable cause, and guilt or innocence is not at stake, the nondisclosure of an informer’s identity is not error.’ ” People v. McBee, 228 Ill.

1997People v. Williams, 266 Ill.

1996People v. Meyers, 158 Ill. 2d 46, 54 , 630 N.E.2d 811 (1994).

1996People v. Meyers, 158 Ill.2d 46, 54 , 196 Ill.Dec. 646 , 630 N.E.2d 811 (1994).

1994People v. Costello (1992), 224 Ill.

1990There is no fixed rule as to when an informant's identity must be disclosed, and the decision will be made on the circumstances of each case, by balancing the public interest in protecting informants against the right of an accused to prepare a defense. ( Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. at 628-29 , 1 L.Ed.2d at 646 .) However, at least when an informant is alleged to have participated in, witnessed, or helped to arrange the criminal events and disclosure of the informant's identity will not jeopardize health and safety, the privilege to withhold the informant's identity will generally give

1990There is no fixed rule as to when an informant's identity must be disclosed, and the decision will be made on the circumstances of each case, by balancing the public interest in protecting informants against the right of an accused to prepare a defense. ( Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. at 628-29 , 1 L.Ed.2d at 646 .) However, at least when an informant is alleged to have participated in, witnessed, or helped to arrange the criminal events and disclosure of the informant's identity will not jeopardize health and safety, the privilege to withhold the informant's identity will generally give

1990Lewis, 57 Ill.2d at 237 , 311 N.E.2d 685 ; People v. Forsythe (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 643, 645 , 40 Ill.Dec. 357 , 406 N.E.2d 58 .

1990Lewis, 57 Ill.2d at 237 , 311 N.E.2d 685 ; People v. Forsythe (1980), 84 Ill.App.3d 643, 645 , 40 Ill.Dec. 357 , 406 N.E.2d 58 .

1990There is no fixed rule as to when an informant's identity must be disclosed, and the decision will be made on the circumstances of each case, by balancing the public interest in protecting informants against the right of an accused to prepare a defense. ( Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. at 628-29 , 1 L.Ed.2d at 646 .) However, at least when an informant is alleged to have participated in, witnessed, or helped to arrange the criminal events and disclosure of the informant's identity will not jeopardize health and safety, the privilege to withhold the informant's identity will generally give

1990There is no fixed rule as to when an informant's identity must be disclosed, and the decision will be made on the circumstances of each case, by balancing the public interest in protecting informants against the right of an accused to prepare a defense. ( Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. at 628-29 , 1 L.Ed.2d at 646 .) However, at least when an informant is alleged to have participated in, witnessed, or helped to arrange the criminal events and disclosure of the informant's identity will not jeopardize health and safety, the privilege to withhold the informant's identity will generally give

1987App. 3d 455, 463 , 418 N.E.2d 880, 886-89 .) A charging instrument substantially complies with the requirements of section 111 — 3 if it gives notice of the elements of the charge and particularizes it sufficiently with allegations of the essential facts to enable the accused to prepare a defense which, if successful, would bar further prosecution for the same offense.

1986In People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23 , 344 N.E.2d 456 , the supreme court held that when the sufficiency of a charge is raised for the first time on appeal, the charge is sufficient if it enables the accused to prepare his defense and is sufficient to plead in bar of further action.

1986In People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23 , 344 N.E.2d 456 , the supreme court held that when the sufficiency of a charge is raised for the first time on appeal, the charge is sufficient if it enables the accused to prepare his defense and is sufficient to plead in bar of further action.

1984(People v. Hall (1982), 96 Ill. 2d 315 ; People v. Heard (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 501 ; People v. Shelton (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 490 .) This requirement may be satisfied by proper allegations in the body of the charging instrument even when they vaiy from the statement of the offense in its caption.

1984(People v. Hall (1982), 96 Ill. 2d 315 ; People v. Heard (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 501 ; People v. Shelton (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 490 .) This requirement may be satisfied by proper allegations in the body of the charging instrument even when they vaiy from the statement of the offense in its caption.

1984(People v. Hall (1982), 96 Ill. 2d 315 ; People v. Heard (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 501 ; People v. Shelton (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 490 .) This requirement may be satisfied by proper allegations in the body of the charging instrument even when they vaiy from the statement of the offense in its caption.

1982(Greco v. State Police Merit Board (1969), 105 Ill.

1982People v. Sims (1982), 108 Ill.

1982People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508 , 404 N.E.2d 181 ; People v. Banks (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 383 , 388 N.E.2d 1244 ; People v. Miller (1979), 75 Ill.

1982People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508 , 404 N.E.2d 181 ; People v. Banks (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 383 , 388 N.E.2d 1244 ; People v. Miller (1979), 75 Ill.

1982People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508 , 404 N.E.2d 181 ; People v. Banks (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 383 , 388 N.E.2d 1244 ; People v. Miller (1979), 75 Ill.

1982People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508 , 404 N.E.2d 181 ; People v. Banks (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 383 , 388 N.E.2d 1244 ; People v. Miller (1979), 75 Ill.

1982People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508 , 404 N.E.2d 181 ; People v. Banks (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 383 , 388 N.E.2d 1244 ; People v. Miller (1979), 75 Ill.

1979(See People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335 , 335 N.E.2d 437 .) Thus, we think that before such a motion is allowed, the offer to stipulate should include not only a statement as to the undesignated felony and penitentiary release but also that an indictment so amended is sufficient to allow the preparation of a defense and protect the accused from double jeopardy.

1979(See People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335 , 335 N.E.2d 437 .) Thus, we think that before such a motion is allowed, the offer to stipulate should include not only a statement as to the undesignated felony and penitentiary release but also that an indictment so amended is sufficient to allow the preparation of a defense and protect the accused from double jeopardy.

1973(People v. Harvey, 53 Ill.2d 585, 588 .) We find that count II satisfied these criteria, and if defendant desired to obtain the name of the party who was the object of the offense this may have been accomplished by a request for a bill of particulars.

1966People v. Zangain, 301 Ill 299, 133 NE 783 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill2d 336, 169 NE2d 776 .