Amended Opinion of August 19, 1996,
Baker, C.j., Becker, J., Webster, J.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH OPINION AND MODIFYING OPINION
The attorney for the respondent having filed a motion to publish opinion, and the court having determined that the motion should be granted; now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to publish opinion be, and the same is, hereby granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the opinion filed on August 19, 1996, will be published, the opinion shall be and is hereby modified as follows:
1. On page 1, the opening paragraph of the opinion shall be changed to read as follows:
BAKER, C.J. - Rory Chaten appeals his conviction for second degree assault. The information which charged him with that crime did not explicitly state the necessary element of intent. Chaten argues that this omission renders the charging document constitutionally insufficient. We apply the pre-verdict standard of review to Chaten's challenge, but hold that the information was sufficient because an assault is commonly understood to be an intentional act. The remaining issues on appeal will be addressed in the unpublished portion of this opinion.
2. On page 1, the second paragraph commencing with the words "Because this opinion will not be published . . ." shall be deleted in its entirety.
3. On page 7, line 4, commencing with the heading "Sufficiency of Information " and continuing through page 9 with footnote 11, said text shall be moved to page 1, immediately following the opening paragraph. The first paragraph of that section shall be changed to delete the word "Finally", and shall read as follows:
Sufficiency of Information
Chaten asserts that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss after the State rested. He argues, as he did below, that the information was insufficient.
4. Following the section entitled "Sufficiency of Information" and ending with footnote 11, the following paragraphs shall be inserted:
The remainder of this opinion has no precedential value, and will not be published.
Chaten alleges (1) his speedy trial right was violated, (2) the State's failure to produce testimony by a victim was fatal to its case, (3) the court should have granted a mistrial because witnesses violated pretrial orders, and (4) the court should ...