of which was the resisting arrest case under a general statute in which the the conduct that constituted the but the proof of guilt was very on different facts if there was a definition of what constitutes an essential element in the illinois and essential elements must be proved as charged we would not have had the problem that i've raised in this case which is that there is a charge of alleging one set of facts that is breaking the law but then the proof of all of the facts that constitute the breaking of the law about double jeopardy whether the notice of the charge was sufficient to avoid double jeopardy and there's also a question about  problematic because of the lack of notice the problems with a possible deal for your party that i just mentioned and the best analogy i can think it's so broad that in referring back to to my analogy to the controlled substances act there would be akin to charging the defendant with this possession of a controlled substance he needs to be more particular very sick and that because again because of double jeopardy concerns and because of notice of concerns with any any physical action yes countering the attempt to rescue you have a lot of stuff going are you are now in this case the jury narrowed it down which i suggest would be the jury's equivalent of returning a bill under a different set of one point about that is that it was the the state that had the information needed to particular charge was not to defend so the state had access to the police reports the state had access to the policemen who were there they'd were the ones who provided the information that violate the law in this case were the facts that were all come up with prove that trial close facts were known to the state because the state had access to the police officers who testified at the trial into the police was to adopt something that said it would need to be that specific it could be a simple example saying that transcends a person battered a woman with her left hand but then at that the prosecutor has access to the police officers has access to the weasel words and is in a position to know exactly what was done with the testimony will be i would like to bring up the case of people versus meant that this court decided and i think it's very unstructured on this matter that case of people vs net from this district states that even if a variance exists when the evidence  defense in that particular case the complaint charged the defense with obstructing his own arrest by accident in his vehicle and refusing to return she that the defendant argued that he was not even under arrest at the time he indictment versus issuing defendant a citation and this court found that that difference was immaterial smith found that the state only needed to prove the elements of the struct in a peace officer which were defended no when we've started a peace officer the officer was performing an authorized act is a physical passing and defendant knew he was a police officer and that's what smith decided that was the case from this district and i would think that that's very instructive on this matter because the difference between a struggling to keep in her hands of her and pulling her hand away year based on when the officers entered her house the officers testified that they felt that she was interfering with the arrest of her son and then she punished according to the officer no because if is a name you can think of the case on the top of my head that there is a case law that if she is acquitted on one of the charges that does not mean that she did not in fact resist  that were proved at trial at least material no material difference and alternately it is for the church back to determine if the defendant physically resisted arrest trial established that she did pull her hands away jury handcuffing by struggling to keep her hands apart so they wouldn't say that that was surplusage the statement said that that was exactly what happened here she pulled her hands away during handcuffing the officers and it's very possible that the officers when the state was questioning the officers prior to their testimony before the grand jury it's very possible they did say she pulled her hand her hands away during and having but then when they got on the stand during the bench trial they may have said she struggled to keep her hands apart from being handcuffed so it is very possible that the navy said that initially and then while they rather stand in the same thing and moreover the state would argue that she was not harmed to any way by this indictment in preparing her her defense she she was put on notice that the charge her act was she pulled her hand so this is the that is has not stated in one way they would have changed their trial strategy had had the language specifically that she struggled to keep her hands apart from being who they don't ca i would say there could be an argument made that in the fence certainly have an argument that that those two are completely different things but in this case they were pulling her hands apart and struggling to of what i'm saying is that specially with federal statute it's very dog you're saying if i'm understanding it correctly that within the broad range of all the things that can get to resisting arrest yes whatever it is the prosecutor  was different than the proof at trial and that was the the money