The defendant has to receive sufficient notice of the accusation. If the state fails to give that, the defendant can move to dismiss the indictment.
The specificity required in the indictment is not much. Generally it must allege the elements of a crime, give a timeframe, and establish venue (“in the county aforesaid.”)
“Our prior cases indicate that an indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.
Hagner v. United States, 285 U. S. 427 (1932);
United States v. Debrow, 346 U. S. 374 (1953). It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as "those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished."
United States v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 612 (1882). "Undoubtedly the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offence, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused
*118 of the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged."
United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 487 (1888).”
scholar.google.com
If the indictment is technically sufficient, the defendant can move for a bill of particulars and allege that they need more information.
From the 2nd Circuit:
“In denying the motions for bills of particulars by Cruz and other defendants,
[6] the district court characterized these efforts as "ill-disguised attempts at general pre-trial discovery,"
United States v. Torres, No. S. 87 Cr. 593 (JMW), slip op. at 27, adding: "The indictment adequately advises defendants of the specific acts of which they are accused. Moreover, the defendants have been provided with a wealth of evidentiary detail from the discovery to date, including electronic intercepts, search evidence and exhaustive supporting affidavits."
Id. at 28.
“We agree. "The function of a bill of particulars is to provide defendant with information about the details of the charge against him if this is necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at the trial." 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 129, at 434-35 (2d ed. 1982);
see also United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir.1987). "A bill of particulars should be required only where the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused."
United States v. Feola, 651 F.Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.)(mem.),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 110, 107 L.Ed.2d 72 (1989);
see also United States v. Leonelli, 428 F.Supp. 880, 882 (S.D.N.Y.1977). "Whether to grant a bill of particulars rests within the sound discretion of the district court."
United States v. Panza, 750 F.2d 1141, 1148 (2d Cir.1984) (citing
United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1358-59 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015, 101 S.Ct. 574, 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980));
see also Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574. "Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars."
Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45, 49 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 877, 89 S.Ct. 176, 21 L.Ed.2d 149 (1968). "So long as the defendant was adequately informed of the charges against him and was not unfairly surprised at trial as a consequence of the denial of the bill of particulars, the trial court has not abused its discretion."
United States v. Maull, 806 F.2d 1340, 1345-46 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 907, 107 S.Ct. 1352, 94 L.Ed.2d 522 (1987).“
scholar.google.com
The denial of a bill of particulars is not an issue worth raising on appeal. The trial judge basically gets the last word.
