We observe, however, that defense counsel would be well served to be prepared and present evidence, including documents or testimony, concerning a defendant's alleged addiction for the trial court to consider. (See People v. Carroll (1994), 258 Ill. App.3d 371, 373, 630 N.E.2d 1337 (defense counsel appended relevant documents to the presentence report and presented testimony at the sentencing hearing to demonstrate that the defendant was an alcoholic).) Thus, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Charge three, later superseded, was based on imposition of a prison sentence. This charge was superseded because Carroll's term of imprisonment was reversed by the appellate court in People v. Carroll, 258 Ill. App.3d 371, 630 N.E.2d 1337, 197 Ill. Dec. 213 (1994). On resentencing, Carroll was sentenced pursuant to the Illinois Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependency Act.
¶ 24 A defendant does not have an absolute right to the treatment alternative provided under the Act, and the trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a defendant's request to participate in the treatment program. People v. Carroll, 258 Ill.App.3d 371, 374 (1994). "A trial court's determination of defendant's eligibility under the Act will not be reversed on appeal, absent a showing that the trial court acted in an arbitrary manner or abused its discretion." Id.
The present indictment is sufficient because it charges the offense of bribery in the words of the current statute ( 720 ILCS 5/33-1(a) (West 2000)), which particularizes the offense and does not require a "corrupt" intent. See People v. Carroll, 258 Ill. App. 3d 371, 376, 630 N.E.2d 1337, 1340 (1994) (an indictment that charges an offense in the language of the statute is sufficient, if the words of the statute particularize the offense so that an accused is apprised, with reasonable certainty, of the precise offense). D. Not Authorized To Accept