of actual knowledge. Finally, the State argues that Israel’s right to be informed was not violated because Israel could and did seek discovery materials, and because a bill of particulars could have been either requested by Israel pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(d) or ordered by the court pursuant to HRS § 806-47 (1985). Based on our rule that all of the information supplied to a defendant must be considered in determining whether the defendant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated, Treat, 67 Haw. at 120, 680 P.2d at 251, we agree that information provided in a bill of particulars or obtained via discovery should be considered. But cf. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038,1050, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, however, no bill of
holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal holding that it is clearly settled that where there is a failure to establish an essential element of the defamation cause of action the case becomes one of law for the court holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point holding that under federal law it is a settled rule that a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely