Court Opinion

ID: 9526554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:19:57.006325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:33.423167
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, specially concurring: Although I concur, I write separately because I do not join in that portion of the majority opinion that discusses whether the original complaint was void and whether the defects contained therein are formal, substantive, or a miswriting. I respectfully submit that these considerations are simply not relevant to the critical issue— whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to allow the State to file an amended complaint. When confronted with the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the State requested leave to file an amended, long-form complaint. The trial judge allowed the State’s motion. At this point, the viability of the original complaint is moot. The cases cited in the majority opinion that distinguish between formal and substantive defects involve either a defendant’s post-trial attack on the complaint or the State’s attempt to amend during or post trial. However, as here, where the State’s motion to amend was well in advance of trial and did not in any way prejudice the defendant, there is no reason to determine whether the defect in the original complaint is formal or substantive. See People v. Kincaid, 87 Ill. 2d 107 (1981); People v. Casa, 113 Ill. App. 2d 1 (1969); People v. De Groot, 108 Ill. App. 2d 1 (1968).