Court Opinion

ID: 9682164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:06:21.551367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.889860
License: Public Domain

EDWIN H. SMITH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur in the majority opinion affirming appellant’s convictions as to Counts 51 — 100, but dissent as to its opinion reversing his convictions as to Counts 1 — 50.
The majority holds that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars in that the informations as to Counts 1 — 50 were inadequate in their description of the pigs alleged to have been abused in violation of § 578.012, resulting in appellant being unable to prepare his defense and being free from multiple prosecutions in violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. Although I agree with the majority’s analysis of the law, I disagree that the facts of this case require reversal as to Counts 1— 50.
I would agree that the informations as to Counts 1 — 50 were neither artfully drawn nor models of compliance with the rules governing the drafting of misdemeanor informa-tions. I would also agree that it would have been advisable for the trial court to have sustained appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars. However, I would disagree as to *856the prejudice found by the majority resulting from the lack of specificity in the description of the alleged abused pigs. See State v. Hogan, 748 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Mo.App.1988) (holding that “[a] defect does not invalidate an information unless it prejudices the substantial rights of the defendant”).
It is well settled that “[a]s long as the act charged falls within the statutory definition of the offense and the indictment informed the defendant of the charge against him, the details of the commission are generally unnecessary.” State v. Hyler, 861 S.W.2d 646, 649-50 (Mo.App.1993). Further, the law does not require that the specificity necessary to allow .a defendant to prepare his defense and to be free from multiple prosecutions comes from the charging instrument alone. Id. The test is whether the defendant is adequately advised of the charges under all the circumstances, including the discovery provided. Id.
Having reviewed the transcript, I am left with the firm impression that the appellant, under all the circumstances, was adequately advised prior to trial of the charges against him so as to allow him to prepare his defense and to be free from multiple prosecutions. My country-common-sense tells me that all involved understood, without further description of the pigs in the informations, what was being charged and as to what pigs. Appellant had a vigorous defense as to Counts 1— 50, in which there were specific references to individual pigs. There did not appear to be the overwhelming confusion that appellant would ask us to believe existed by the failure of the trial court to grant the bill of particulars. Further, given the record, I fail to see how there is any likelihood that appellant would be subjected to multiple prosecutions as a result of the trial court’s failure to sustain his motion for a bill of particulars.
I would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars and would affirm his convictions as to Counts 1 — 50.