defendant in making defense in Illinois

1921Clark v. People, 224 Ill. 554 .

1907(Clark v. People, 224 Ill. 554 .) The office of the indictment was properly filled in this instance in apprising the plaintiff in error, in plain terms, where the crime was charged to have been committed.

2013Recently, the supreme court in People v. Baskerville, 2012 IL 111056 , ¶ 19 explained: "The term 'obstruct' is not defined in section 31-1.

1977(People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage.” ( 23 Ill. 2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) Moreover, the court in Figgers held that the variance between the pleadings and proof, to vitiate a trial, must be material and of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his defense or expose him to double jeopardy.

1977The court in affirming the defendant's conviction stated: "Also of importance here is the general rule that immaterial matters, or matters which may be omitted from an indictment without rendering it insufficient or doing damage to the material averments, may be regarded as surplusage. ( People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage." ( 23 Ill.2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) *418 Moreover, the court in Fi

1977(People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage.” ( 23 Ill. 2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) Moreover, the court in Figgers held that the variance between the pleadings and proof, to vitiate a trial, must be material and of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his defense or expose him to double jeopardy.

1977(People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage.” ( 23 Ill. 2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) Moreover, the court in Figgers held that the variance between the pleadings and proof, to vitiate a trial, must be material and of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his defense or expose him to double jeopardy.

1977In People v. Johnson, 65 Ill. 2d 332 , 357 N.E.2d 1166 , the defendant alleged for the first time on appeal that there was a variance between the pleading and proof at trial.

1977In People v. Johnson, 65 Ill. 2d 332 , 357 N.E.2d 1166 , the defendant alleged for the first time on appeal that there was a variance between the pleading and proof at trial.

1977(People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage.” ( 23 Ill. 2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) Moreover, the court in Figgers held that the variance between the pleadings and proof, to vitiate a trial, must be material and of such character as may mislead the defendant in making his defense or expose him to double jeopardy.

1977The court in affirming the defendant's conviction stated: "Also of importance here is the general rule that immaterial matters, or matters which may be omitted from an indictment without rendering it insufficient or doing damage to the material averments, may be regarded as surplusage. ( People v. Osborne, 278 Ill. 104 ; People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455 .) Accordingly, where an indictment charges all of the elements essential to an offense under a statute, other matters unnecessarily added may be rejected as surplusage." ( 23 Ill.2d 516, 519 , 179 N.E.2d 626, 627 .) *418 Moreover, the court in Fi

1976(People v. Bristow, 8 Ill.

1942(People v. Rave, 364 Ill. 72 ; People v. Funk, 325 id. 57.) We are not persuaded that because the facts alleged in the indictment in this case may have been sufficient to charge both a felony under section 9 and a misdemeanor under section 2, the indictment is rendered indefinite or prejudiced the defendant in making his defense.