defendant to prepare defense in Missouri

2021A charging document will only be deemed insufficient if it was "so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced." State v. Beck, 557 S.W.3d 408, 420 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 35 ).

2018When the sufficiency of the charging instrument is raised for the first time after the verdict, the Supreme Court has held that it will be "deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced." State v. Parkhurst , 845 S.W.2d 31 , 35 (Mo. banc 1992).

2021If the charging document is insufficient under either basis, the defendant must then "demonstrate actual 19 prejudice, which is that 'the information or indictment was either so deficient that the defendant was not placed on notice as to what crime he or she was being charged with or was so lacking in clarity that the defendant was unable properly to prepare a defense.'" Id. (quoting State v. Williams, 126 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Mo. banc 2004)).

2018The defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice, which is that "the information or indictment was either so deficient that the defendant was not placed on notice as to what crime he or she was being charged with or was so lacking in clarity that the defendant was unable properly to prepare a defense." State v. Williams , 126 S.W.3d 377 , 381 (Mo. banc 2004).

2023“A charging document will only be deemed insufficient if it was ‘so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted 6 or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced.’” State v. Hendricks, 619 S.W.3d 171 , 183 (Mo.App. 2021) (quoting State v. Beck, 557 S.W.3d 408, 420 (Mo.App. 2018)).

2021A charging document will only be deemed insufficient if it was "so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced." State v. Beck, 557 S.W.3d 408, 420 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 35 ).

2022Even granting Defendant the most generous reading of his motion, to the extent he implies his plea was unknowing or involuntary due to lack of a sufficient charging document, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion or clearly erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea under the circumstances here. “[W]hen a defendant objects to the sufficiency of the charging document only after he already has been convicted, the charging document ‘will be deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defend

2011Regarding the alleged information insufficiency, when a defendant objects to the sufficiency of the charging document only after he already has been convicted, the charging document "will be deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted, or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced.” State v. Briscoe, 847 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Mo. banc 1993).

2025See State v. Shutters, 697 S.W.3d 13 , 20 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (holding that where both the original and the amended information referred to the same charge arising from the exact same conduct, defendant’s defenses were equally available both before and after the amendment and defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced). 19 will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in th

2025“A defendant suffers actual prejudice if the information or indictment was either so deficient that the defendant was not placed on notice as to what crime he or she was being charged with or was so lacking in clarity that the defendant was unable properly to prepare a defense.” Id. at 381-82 (quoting Carlock, 242 S.W.3d at 464 ).

2025See State v. Shutters, 697 S.W.3d 13 , 20 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (holding that where both the original and the amended information referred to the same charge arising from the exact same conduct, defendant’s defenses were equally available both before and after the amendment and defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced). 19 will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in th

2016Rule 23.04; see also State v. Celis-Garcia, 420 S.W.3d 723, 727 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014).

2007See State v. Barnes, 942 S.W.2d 362, 368 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Kenney, 973 S.W.2d 536, 543-44 (Mo.App.1998) overruled on other grounds by State v. With-row, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999); State v. Musil, 935 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Cortez-Figueroa, 855 S.W.2d 431, 439-40 (Mo.App.1993). 2 Because Defendant’s challenge was untimely, the information will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defens

2007The second test is obviously derived from the primary purpose of an information which “is to give defendant sufficient notice of the charge to allow adequate preparation of a defense and avoid retrial on the same charges in case of acquittal.” State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209, 218 (Mo. banc 1996).

2007See State v. Barnes, 942 S.W.2d 362, 368 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Kenney, 973 S.W.2d 536, 543-44 (Mo.App.1998) overruled on other grounds by State v. With-row, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999); State v. Musil, 935 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Cortez-Figueroa, 855 S.W.2d 431, 439-40 (Mo.App.1993). 2 Because Defendant’s challenge was untimely, the information will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defens

2007See State v. Barnes, 942 S.W.2d 362, 368 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Kenney, 973 S.W.2d 536, 543-44 (Mo.App.1998) overruled on other grounds by State v. With-row, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999); State v. Musil, 935 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Cortez-Figueroa, 855 S.W.2d 431, 439-40 (Mo.App.1993). 2 Because Defendant’s challenge was untimely, the information will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defens

2007See State v. Barnes, 942 S.W.2d 362, 368 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Kenney, 973 S.W.2d 536, 543-44 (Mo.App.1998) overruled on other grounds by State v. With-row, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999); State v. Musil, 935 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Cortez-Figueroa, 855 S.W.2d 431, 439-40 (Mo.App.1993). 2 Because Defendant’s challenge was untimely, the information will not be deemed insufficient unless it is so defective that “(1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defens

2005“The plain error rule should be used sparingly and does not justify a review of every alleged trial error that has not been properly preserved for appellate review.” State v. White, 92 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo.App.2002).

2004State v. Washington, 92 S.W.3d 205, 207 (Mo.App.2002) When defects in a charging document are raised for the first time on appeal, the indictment or information will be deemed insufficient only if it is so defective that: (1) it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted; or (2) the substantial rights of the defendant to prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced.

1997State v. Cunningham, 863 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Mo.App.

1997State v. Cunningham, 863 S.W.2d 914, 919 (Mo.App.

1994Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 35 [8]; See also, State v. Willyard, 847 S.W.2d 948, 951 [4] (Mo.App.1993).

1994In either event, a defendant will not be entitled to relief based on a post-verdict claim that the information or in *322 dictment is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice.” Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 35 ; State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 706 [11] (Mo.App.1993).

1993State v. Hogan, 748 S.W.2d 766, 770 [9] (Mo.App.1988).