People v. DiLorenzo

78 Citing cases

  1. People v. Deweese

    298 Ill. App. 3d 4 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    In DeWeese, this court discussed Novak and DiLorenzo and held that aggravated criminal sexual abuse can be found as a lesser-included offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault even where the indictment omits language describing defendant's touching or fondling of the victim for purposes of sexual gratification or arousal.

    Defendant argues that, as in Novak, the indictment does not describe the foundation or main outline of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, because it contains no language describing any touching or fondling of the victim for purposes of sexual gratification or arousal. However, two recent supreme court cases, People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318 (1996), and People v. Hamilton, 179 Ill.2d 319 (1997), cast doubt on whether such language is required. In DiLorenzo, defendant was charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse in that "he, who was 17 years of age or older, knowingly committed an act of sexual conduct with [the victim] who was under 13 years of age when the act was committed."

  2. People v. Kolton

    347 Ill. App. 3d 142 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 13 times

    People v. Balle, 234 Ill.App.3d 804, 813, 176 Ill.Dec. 90, 601 N.E.2d 788 (1992); see also People v. Allensworth, 235 Ill.App.3d 185, 189, 175 Ill.Dec. 739, 600 N.E.2d 1197 (1992); People v. Hubbard, 264 Ill.App.3d 188, 196, 201 Ill.Dec. 663, 636 N.E.2d 1095 (1994).         The primary concern, as noted by the supreme court in People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318, 323, 214 Ill.Dec. 846, 662 N.E.2d 412 (1996) (DiLorenzo), is that the "indictment apprised defendant of the precise offense charged with enough specificity to prepare his defense and allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct." Under the present circumstances, it is unnecessary to predicate the existence of gratification or arousal upon the presence of language indicating a "threat of force."

  3. People v. Libricz

    2022 IL 127757 (Ill. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    42 (quoting People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318, 322 (1996)). The court found "defendant was well aware, before trial, that there had been changes in the law during the periods alleged in the indictment" and "counsel had enough information to adequately prepare a defense."

  4. People v. Burchell

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 170079 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    As the Illinois Supreme Court has recognized, an individual accused of a crime "has a fundamental right, under both the Federal Constitution ( U.S. Const., amend. VI ) and the Illinois Constitution of 1970 ( Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, Β§ 8 ), to be informed of the β€˜nature and cause’ of criminal accusations made against" that individual. People v. DiLorenzo , 169 Ill. 2d 318, 321, 214 Ill.Dec. 846, 662 N.E.2d 412 (1996). The failure to charge an offense "implicates due process concerns."

  5. People v. Burchell

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 170079 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    Const. 1970, art. I, Β§ 8), to be informed of the 'nature and cause' of criminal accusations made against" that individual. People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill. 2d 318, 321 (1996). The failure to charge an offense "implicates due process concerns."

  6. People v. Smith

    No. 1-05-1535 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a fundamental due process right to notice of the charges brought against him. People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill. 2d 318, 321 (1996). For this reason, a defendant may not be convicted of an offense he has not been charged with committing.People v. Baldwin, 199 Ill. 2d 1, 6 (2002); see also People v. Knaff, 196 Ill. 2d 460, 472 (2001); People v. Jones, 149 Ill. 2d 288, 292 (1992).

  7. People v. Goebel

    284 Ill. App. 3d 618 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 7 times
    Noting our obligation to follow supreme court precedent and our lack of authority to overrule or modify its decisions

    The State petitioned this court for leave to supply us with additional authority; we granted the State's petition. On appeal to this court, the State raises one issue: whether reversal of the trial court's dismissal order is required, based on the authority of People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318 (1996). The State contends that the allegations in the amended information were sufficient to state the offense of aggravated criminal sexual abuse.

  8. People v. Gonsalez-Garcia

    2023 Ill. App. 2d 230035 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    However, when an indictment is challenged for the first time on appeal, as in the present case," 'the standard of review is more liberal.'" Id. (quoting People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318, 322 (1996)). In such a case," '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 prosecutions arising out of the same conduct.'"

  9. People v. Ybarra

    2023 Ill. App. 3d 210167 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ΒΆ 24 A defendant has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of criminal accusations against him. People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318, 321 (1996). "The 'nature and cause' of a criminal accusation refers to the crime committed, not the manner in which it was committed." Id.

  10. People v. Ortega

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 190699 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Specifically, when, unlike here, an indictment is challenged for the first time on appeal, the standard of review is somewhat liberal, allowing the court to consider whether the defect in the indictment prejudiced the defendant in preparing his or her defense. People v. DiLorenzo, 169 Ill.2d 318, 322 (1996). "In such a case, it is sufficient that the indictment apprised the accused of the precise offense charged with enough specificity to (1) allow preparation of his [or her] defense and (2) allow pleading a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecutions arising out of the same conduct."