Opinion ID: 2088581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: false testimony, deficient evidence and discovery violations

Text: Defendant further complains in his pro se brief that (1) the State sought an indictment for the incorrect day of the victim's murder; (2) said indictment form was withheld from the defense until after trial; (3) the State introduced false testimony and evidence at trial and allowed such evidence to be considered by the jury; and (4) the State violated rules of discovery. These issues were not preserved for review. Accordingly, they are waived. ( Enoch, 122 Ill.2d at 185-87, 119 Ill.Dec. 265, 522 N.E.2d 1124.) Even if defendant had not waived these issues for review, we find that any error regarding the date of murder was harmless and all other claims meritless. The grand jury indictment incorrectly listed December 8, 1982, as the date on which defendant committed the murder of Jimmy Christian. Evidence established at trial that the actual date of the murder was December 6, 1982, and the date the victim's body was discovered was December 8, 1982. Defendant was sufficiently apprised of the precise offense charged in the indictment and has not shown to have been prejudiced in the preparation of his defense by the error in the date of murder on the indictment. Moreover, any inconsistency regarding the date of murder was harmless error, as the precise time of the murder was not an essential element of the crime. See People v. Alexander (1982), 93 Ill.2d 73, 77-78, 66 Ill.Dec. 326, 442 N.E.2d 887 (date alleged in charging instrument need not ordinarily be proved precisely and any irregularity between the indictment and proof establishing the offense was committed on a date other than that precisely alleged is not a fatal variance). Defendant provides no basis for his allegations that said indictment form was withheld from the defense or any evidence that any such alleged withholding prejudiced defendant in preparing his defense. Any such error would be harmless and would not invoke the plain error rule. Defendant's argument regarding false testimony by Detective Kaupert concerning the date of the murder is meritless as well. Any alleged error in Detective Kaupert's testimony regarding the date of murder was harmless. Finally, notwithstanding that defendant clearly waived the issue regarding the State's failure to comply with discovery rules, we find this argument totally void of any evidence or proof that the State failed to do so. Defendant does not specify which rules were violated, or that such evidence was requested by defense counsel and subsequently suppressed by the State. (See Moore v. Illinois (1972), 408 U.S. 786, 794-95, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706, 713.) Furthermore, defendant did not show that the discovery material purportedly withheld from the defense would have been favorable to defendant or material to his guilt or punishment. ( Moore, 408 U.S. at 794-95, 92 S.Ct. at 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d at 713.) We find defendant's claims to have been waived and, regardless of waiver, unfounded.