Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Charity

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 14, 1981No. 11984Published

1DissentMaus, Chief Judge

I must respectfully dissent. The indictment is not a model and certainly should not be followed. However, measured by the standards for informations or indictments, as those standards have developed, I believe the indictment is not fatally defective.

V.A.M.R. Crim. Rule 23.01(b)(2) requires an indictment to “[s]tate plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the offense charged”. It “must adequately notify a defendant of the charge against him and constitute a bar to further prosecution for the same offense, .... ” Hodges v. State, 462 S.W.2d 786, 789 (Mo. 1971). Also…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. VirdureSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
  2. State v. LuskSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
  3. State v. GarrettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. Kansas City v. StricklinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
  5. State v. StancliffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1971

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API