We read the information, and the affidavit in support thereof, as a whole to determine the sufficiency of the charging documents. We apply the "common understanding" rule to determine if the charging language of a document allows a person to understand the charges against him. Under this standard, the test of the sufficiency of a charging document is whether the defendant is apprised of the charges and whether he will be surprised. State v. Wilson, 2007 MT 327, ¶ 25, 340 Mont. 191, 172 P.3d 1264.
An affidavit in support of a motion to file an information need not make out a prima facie case that a defendant committed an offense. A mere probability that he committed the offense is sufficient. Similarly, evidence to establish probable cause need not be as complete as the evidence necessary to establish guilt. The determination whether a motion to file an information is supported by probable cause is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Kern, 2003 MT 77, ¶17, 315 Mont. 22, 67 P.3d 272.
Montana follows the general rule that an information is sufficient if it properly charges an offense in the language of the statute describing the offense. State v. Steffes, 269 Mont. 214, 223, 887 P.2d 1196, 1201 (1994).
An information need not be perfect. Technical errors (such as citing the wrong statute number when the correct name and language of the offense was used) are subject to harmless error review. State v. Pearson, 217 Mont. 363, 367, 704 P.2d 1056, 1059 (1985).