In the INTEREST OF: J.T., Minor
447 S.W.3d 212
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Feb. 2, 2013 multiple girls attacked A.C.; juvenile J.T. was charged by amended petition with second‑degree assault under §565.060.1(2) (knowingly causing physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument).
- An adjudication hearing was held in June–July 2013; after the close of evidence the trial court found J.T. guilty of second‑degree assault but under §565.060.1(3) (recklessly causing serious physical injury).
- The court sentenced J.T. to supervised probation and 40 hours community service; J.T. appealed.
- J.T. raised two points on appeal: (1) insufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (2) the charge was improperly amended after close of evidence, violating due process notice requirements.
- The court found the second point dispositive: convicting J.T. under subsection (3) when charged under subsection (2) was an evident, plain error that deprived her of notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend.
- The court reversed the adjudication and ordered J.T. discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convicting J.T. of §565.060.1(3) after charging under §565.060.1(2) violated due process notice | J.T.: conviction under a different subsection after close of evidence denied notice and opportunity to defend; subsection (3) is a distinct offense | Juvenile Officer: no plain error; conviction is permissible (conceded post‑submission in this case) | Reversed: plain error — subsection (3) is not a lesser‑included offense of subsection (2); conviction violated due process; manifest injustice occurred |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction | J.T.: insufficient evidence to prove the elements of the offense as found | Juvenile Officer: evidence supported adjudication | Not reached (decision on notice issue was dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review in bench‑tried proceedings)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juvenile proceedings require adequate notice and opportunity to prepare)
- J.D.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 2 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (convicting a juvenile of an offense not specifically charged violates due process)
- T.S.G. v. Juvenile Officer, 322 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (notice requirement satisfied when convicted of a lesser‑included offense contained in charged offense)
- State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. banc 2012) (due process requires notice of elements to allow meaningful defense)
- State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. banc 2008) (constitutional issues must be raised at first opportunity to preserve appellate review)