Criminal
Different substance, same offense
Rule allowed amendment of charges any time before verdict or finding, unless the amendment added a new or different charge, meaning a different element. On a charge of possessing a controlled substance by possessing heroin, two days before trial, the state amended its information to allege that the substance possessed was fentanyl. That amendment did not constitute an additional or different offense because the two substances were both scheduled and thus legally indistinguishable.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Travis J. Devore, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112267
Knowledge and purpose shown in terroristic threat
On a charge of making a terrorist threat, the elements included knowingly communicating a threat. A jury could use any evidence admitted without objection for any purpose, so a dispatch memo describing the defendant’s statement as “going to go to the school and shoot all the kids up” supported a finding that the defendant used those words, testimony to the contrary from another witness notwithstanding. The reaction of the statement’s recipient also supported a finding that the defendant knowingly made a threat. The elements also included “the purpose of frightening ten or more people.” Whether a communication was constitutionally protected speech was a challenge to the sufficiency of the charging instrument that was due in a pre-trial motion and waived when not raised at the earliest opportunity. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SHANE HOWARD KEATHLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD37766