Opinion ID: 1464874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Information

Text: In his second point, Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing the state to submit its second amended information because it failed to properly charge appellant with creation of a controlled substance. The first information filed by the state charged appellant with creation of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.420, in that he knowingly possessed methanol, hydrogen peroxide, lighter fluid, naphtha, muriatic acid and other solvents proven to be precursor ingredients of methamphetamine, with the intent to create methamphetamine. An amended information was filed, charging appellant as a prior and persistent offender. The second amended information was then filed, which charged appellant with knowingly possessing methanol or hydrogen peroxide or lighter fluid or naphtha or muriatic acid or pseudoephedrine or ephedrine or acetone and other solvents proven to be precursor ingredients of methamphetamine with the intent to create methamphetamine. Appellant argues that because the second amended information lists the precursor substances in the disjunctive form, it fails to sufficiently charge him with a violation of section 195.420. The state concedes that it should not have charged possession of each chemical disjunctively in a single count, as possession of any one of the listed chemicals, by itself, is a separate and distinct offense under section 195.420. See State v. Hartman, 364 Mo. 1109, 273 S.W.2d 198, 203 (1954); State v. Barr, 326 Mo. 1095, 34 S.W.2d 477, 480 (1930); State v. Hook, 433 S.W.2d 41, 43-44 (Mo.App.1968). Nevertheless, the state argues that appellant is not entitled to relief, because he did not timely object to the form of the information and has failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the disjunctive submission. Failure to challenge the validity of an information or indictment before a verdict is entered severely limits the scope of available appellate review. When the issue is 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. State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Mo. banc 1992). In either event, a defendant will not be entitled to relief based on a post-verdict claim that the information or indictment is insufficient unless the defendant demonstrates actual prejudice. Id. A defendant suffers actual prejudice only if the indictment or information was so deficient that the defendant was not placed on notice as to what crime he was being charged with, or was so lacking in clarity that the defendant was unable to properly prepare a defense. State v. Pride, 1 S.W.3d 494, 503 (Mo.App. 1999), (citing State v. Briscoe, 847 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. banc 1993)). Here, appellant did not suffer any prejudice, because the faulty information simply could not have hindered his defense. The disjunctive form of the information required that appellant defend against a claim that he possessed all of the named chemicals. However, even if the information had listed the precursors in the appropriate conjunctive form, appellant would have had to prepare the exact same defense. Furthermore, the information, which specifically cited the section of the criminal code alleged to be violated, placed appellant on notice that he would be facing a charge of illegally manufacturing a controlled substance, and appellant has failed to identify any aspect of his defense that would indicate otherwise. Consequently, appellant cannot demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of the disjunctive submission. This point is denied.