defendant to prepare defense in Illinois

1992App. 3d 469, 471-72 , 592 N.E.2d 668, 669 , the decisions in People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335, 339 , 335 N.E.2d 437, 440 , and People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23, 29 , 344 N.E.2d 456, 460 , had held that the sufficiency of those charges, when raised first on appeal need only be sufficient to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and to plead a conviction in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct.

1992App. 3d 469, 471-72 , 592 N.E.2d 668, 669 , the decisions in People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335, 339 , 335 N.E.2d 437, 440 , and People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23, 29 , 344 N.E.2d 456, 460 , had held that the sufficiency of those charges, when raised first on appeal need only be sufficient to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and to plead a conviction in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct.

2019However, where the defendant challenges the sufficiency of indictment for the first time on appeal, a more liberal standard applies, and “it is sufficient that the indictment apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with enough specificity to (1) allow preparation of his defense and (2) allow pleading a resulting -5- conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct.” DiLorenzo, 169 Ill. 2d at 322 . ¶ 21 Furthermore, the circuit court may order the State to provide a bill of particulars when an indictment fails to sufficiently specify the particulars of a cha

2018However, where the defendant challenges the sufficiency of indictment for the first time on appeal, a more liberal standard applies, and "it is sufficient that the indictment apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with enough specificity to (1) allow preparation of his defense and (2) allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct." DiLorenzo , 169 Ill. 2d at 322 , 214 Ill.Dec. 846 , 662 N.E.2d 412 . ¶ 21 Furthermore, the circuit court may order the State to provide a bill of particulars when an indictment fails to sufficiently

2004Smith, 259 Ill.App.3d at 498 [ 197 Ill.Dec. 516 , 631 N.E.2d 738 ]; People v. Intercoastal Realty, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 964, 971 [ 103 Ill.Dec. 767 , 501 N.E.2d 1305 ] (1986)." Swartwout, 311 Ill.App.3d at 256 , 243 Ill.Dec. 655 , 723 N.E.2d 1256 .

2004Smith, 259 Ill.App.3d at 498 [ 197 Ill.Dec. 516 , 631 N.E.2d 738 ]; People v. Intercoastal Realty, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 964, 971 [ 103 Ill.Dec. 767 , 501 N.E.2d 1305 ] (1986)." Swartwout, 311 Ill.App.3d at 256 , 243 Ill.Dec. 655 , 723 N.E.2d 1256 .

2021Carey, 2018 IL 121371 , ¶ 22.

2021Carey, 2018 IL 121371 , ¶ 22.

2015Id. ¶ 43 Morris was concerned with a deficiently pled charging instrument that did not enable the defendant to prepare a defense to the statute-of-limitations exception.

2015Id. ¶ 43 Morris was concerned with a deficiently pled charging instrument that did not enable the defendant to prepare a defense to the statute-of-limitations exception.

2000For example, in People v. Foxall, 283 Ill.

2000For example, in People v. Foxall , 283 Ill.

1975In People v. Harden (1969), 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E.2d 404 , the holding was that the allegation of the theft of a ring, the property of a named individual, sufficiently identified the property to enable the defendant to prepare her defense and to plead double jeopardy even though the property was owned by a partnership of which the named individual was a member.

1975In People v. Harden (1969), 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E.2d 404 , the holding was that the allegation of the theft of a ring, the property of a named individual, sufficiently identified the property to enable the defendant to prepare her defense and to plead double jeopardy even though the property was owned by a partnership of which the named individual was a member.

1975Miller v. Pate, 42 Ill.2d 283 .) Indictments for forgery also need no longer set out in haec verba the document upon which the offense is charged.

1970And we note that in Miller v. Pate, supra, the Mills decision has been cited with approval in a nonnarcotics case, confirming that the tests respecting the sufficiency of an indictment are uniform, whether it would enable a defendant to prepare his defense and whether it would sustain the plea of judgment in bar of any further prosecution for the same offense.

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

1974Succeeding opinions have stated that the essential function of such allegation is to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to prevent surprise at trial, and to establish such a record as would permit him to plead a conviction or an acquittal in bar of a subsequent prosecution. ( People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509 , 162 N.E.2d 390 ; People v. Johnson, 20 Ill.2d 336 , 169 N.E.2d 776 ; People v. Harden, 42 Ill.2d 301 , 247 N.E. 2d 404 , and People v. Jones, 53 Ill.2d 460 , 292 N.E.2d 361 .) In each of these cases the court analyzed the allegation and the facts of record in terms of the fun

2024Id.

2016Id. ¶ 43 Morris was concerned with a deficiently pled charging instrument that did not enable the defendant to prepare a defense to the statute-of-limitations exception.

2016Id. at 547-48 .

2004As we noted in People v. Swartwout, 311 Ill.App.3d 250, 256 , 243 Ill.Dec. 655 , 723 N.E.2d 1256 (2000): "The relevant inquiry is not whether a charging instrument could have described an offense with more particularity, but whether there is sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.

2004As we noted in People v. Swartwout, 311 Ill.App.3d 250, 256 , 243 Ill.Dec. 655 , 723 N.E.2d 1256 (2000): "The relevant inquiry is not whether a charging instrument could have described an offense with more particularity, but whether there is sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to prepare a defense.

2004Meyers, 158 Ill.2d at 54 [ 196 Ill.Dec. 646 , 630 N.E.2d 811 ].

2004Meyers, 158 Ill.2d at 54 [ 196 Ill.Dec. 646 , 630 N.E.2d 811 ].

1992App. 3d 469, 471-72 , 592 N.E.2d 668, 669 , the decisions in People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335, 339 , 335 N.E.2d 437, 440 , and People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23, 29 , 344 N.E.2d 456, 460 , had held that the sufficiency of those charges, when raised first on appeal need only be sufficient to enable a defendant to prepare a defense and to plead a conviction in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same conduct.

1992In People v. Lutz (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 204, 210 , 383 N.E.2d 171, 173 , and People v. Smith (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 467, 470 , 459 N.E.2d 1357, 1359 , the supreme court had held that under the wording of section 116 — 2 of the Code, when a motion in arrest of judgment was made, the charge was not to be tested by the more lenient standard applicable when the issue was not raised until appeal.

1992In People v. Lutz (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 204, 210 , 383 N.E.2d 171, 173 , and People v. Smith (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 467, 470 , 459 N.E.2d 1357, 1359 , the supreme court had held that under the wording of section 116 — 2 of the Code, when a motion in arrest of judgment was made, the charge was not to be tested by the more lenient standard applicable when the issue was not raised until appeal.

1992In People v. Lutz (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 204, 210 , 383 N.E.2d 171, 173 , and People v. Smith (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 467, 470 , 459 N.E.2d 1357, 1359 , the supreme court had held that under the wording of section 116 — 2 of the Code, when a motion in arrest of judgment was made, the charge was not to be tested by the more lenient standard applicable when the issue was not raised until appeal.

1992In People v. Lutz (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 204, 210 , 383 N.E.2d 171, 173 , and People v. Smith (1984), 99 Ill. 2d 467, 470 , 459 N.E.2d 1357, 1359 , the supreme court had held that under the wording of section 116 — 2 of the Code, when a motion in arrest of judgment was made, the charge was not to be tested by the more lenient standard applicable when the issue was not raised until appeal.

1989(See People v. Smith (1973), 15 Ill.