In Dzikowski the focus was on the statute which permitted charging reckless endangerment in a short form and also included a statutory provision providing that a defendant was entitled to a bill of particulars. The COA provided guidance on the parameters of a legally sufficient bill, finding that “discovery” does not pass constitutional muster in terms of notice of a charge. The COA reviewed the statutory entitlement to a bill of particulars as to the charge of reckless endangerment in the Dzikowski case and concluded that the State’s response to the defendant’s demand was legally insufficient. Some criminal statutes provide for mandatory bills of particulars and other statutes, with no specific statutory entitlement to a bill of particulars, call upon the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a defendant’s request for a bill of particulars. The COA in Dzikowski held that merely directing a defendant to look to the discovery provided by the State cannot suffice as a substitute for a legally sufficient bill of particulars pursuant to CL 3-206(d)(5). The COA answered that question in the negative and found that the trial court abused its discretion with resulting prejudice to the defendant when it denied Dzikowski’s exceptions to the State’s nonspecific responses to the question posed in his demand for a bill of particulars. The question before the COA in Dzikowski was whether the State’s response to the defendant’s request for a bill of particulars met the statutory requirement if it merely directed the defendant to look to the discovery the State has provided where a defendant, upon timely request, is statutorily guaranteed a bill of particulars detailing the allegations against him and the factual basis of those allegations. State, 2013 WL 6850029 (12-30-13) the Court of Appeals has infused new vitality into the use of a bill of particulars as a tool to ensure constitutional notice to one charged with a crime where a charging document has been drafted using the statutory short form or is otherwise very general in it allegations. THE BILL OF PARTICULARS – ALIVE AND KICKIN’ AGAIN! If a bill of particulars does not explain enough of the case to support the lawsuit, then the other party might be able to file a motion to dismiss the claim.The Bill of Particulars – Alive and Kickin’! Once you know what the other side is trying to prove to the judge, you can better prepare for depositions or trial. This way, the parties can start to understand what the other side’s “theory of the case” will be – in other words, what the party is trying to prove to the judge so that s/he can get the outcome and the relief s/he is looking for. If there is a complaint filed by one party and a counter-complaint filed by the other party, both parties may request a bill of particulars against each other. Usually, requests for bill of particulars are sent out before depositions happen, and before other forms of discovery, so that the other party has a more complete sense of the allegations against him/her. In other words, a bill of particulars is a discovery tool that can be used by a respondent to figure out what the other party is claiming happened. The respondent in a lawsuit might request a bill of particulars if the complaint has general allegations without getting into the specific details that would be necessary for the respondent to properly defend him/herself in the case. A bill of particulars is a written document in which a party has to explain the allegations in his/her complaint, or petition, in more detail.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |