This guarantees the essential facts constituting the offense to be tried will be found in the indictment issued by the grand jury. State v. Pepka , 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 14. {¶ 17} An indictment is sufficient if it "contains a statement that the defendant has committed a public offense" which may be "in ordinary and concise language" and in the words of the applicable section of the statute, "provided the words of that statute charge an offense, or in words sufficient to give the defendant notice of all the elements of the offense with which the defendant is charged."

"As long as the state complies with Crim.R. 7(D), it may cure a defective indictment by amendment, even if the original indictment omits an essential element of the offense with which the defendant is charged." State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 15. "Courts cannot grant new trials based upon imperfection or inaccuracy in an indictment if the charge is sufficient to fairly and reasonably inform the defendant of the essential elements of the crime." State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 119, 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990), citing Crim.R. 33(E)(1).

However, “[a]s long as the state complies with Crim.R. 7(D), it may cure a defective indictment by amendment, even if the original indictment omits an essential element of the offense with which the defendant is charged.” State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 15.

“[T]he Ohio Constitution guarantees an accused that the essential facts constituting the offense for which he is tried will be found in the indictment by the grand jury.” State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 14, citing Harris v. State, 125 Ohio St. 257, 264, 181 N.E. 104 (1932). We hold that the essential facts constituting Brunning's alleged offense of failure to provide notice of a change of residence address were contained in the indictment.

Thus, the Ohio Constitution guarantees an accused that the essential facts constituting the offense for which he is tried will be found in the indictment by the grand jury." State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 14, citing Harris v. State, 125 Ohio St. 257, 264, 181 N.E. 104 (1932). Crim.R. 7(B) provides, "The statement [specifying the offense in an indictment] may be made in ordinary and concise language without technical averments or allegations not essential to be proved.

Reconsideration Of Prior Decisions. Reported at 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

"As long as the state complies with Crim.R. 7(D), it may cure a defective indictment by amendment, even if the original indictment omits an essential element of the offense with which the defendant is charged." State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 15. "Courts cannot grant new trials based upon imperfection or inaccuracy in an indictment if the charge is sufficient to fairly and reasonably inform the defendant of the essential elements of the crime." State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 119, 559 N.E.2d 710 (1990), citing Crim.R. 33(E)(1).

Under R.C. 2919.22(E)(2)(c), the offense is a felony of the third degree. See State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 2 ("Pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, the only circumstance in which child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) is a third-degree felony is when the victim suffers serious physical harm. R.C. 2919.22(E)(2)(c).").

The indictment does not have to contain the underlying facts of the offense that are not elements of the charge; this is the function of the bill of particulars. State v. Miller, 2018-Ohio-3430, 118 N.E.3d 1094, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 23. An indictment is sufficient if it "contains a statement that the defendant has committed a public offense" which may be "in ordinary and concise language" and in the words of the applicable section of the statute, "provided the words of that statute charge an offense, or in words sufficient to give the defendant notice of all the elements of the offense with which the defendant is charged."

{¶32} Under Crim.R. 7(D), a trial court may amend an indictment "at any time * * * in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, * * * provided no change is made in the name or identify of the crime charged." The state "'may cure a defective indictment by amendment, even if the original indictment omits an essential element of the offense with which the defendant is charged.'" Troisi, supra, at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-1045, 926 N.E.2d 611, ¶ 15; State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466, at ¶ 9. Where an indictment fails to state the mens rea of a crime, the indictment may nevertheless be amended to add the mens rea where "both before and after the amendment of the indictment, the name of the crime remain[s] the same" and neither penalty nor the degree are changed as a result. State v. O'Brien, 30 Ohio St.3d 122, 126, 508 N.E.2d 144 (1987).