DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fogel, 492 P.2d 742.

35 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
    On appeal, Vergara largely re-asserts these arguments.3 I. Statute of Limitations ¶9 “Statutes of limitation in criminal cases are designed primarily to protect the accused from the burden of defending himself against charges of long completed misconduct.” Martin, 135 Ariz. at 100 ().
  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    urt ¶11 Absent consent from the defendant, an indictment may be amended “only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” Id.; (“[A]n indictment may not be amended by the court to charge new and different matters of substance without the concurrence of the grand jury.”) ( ).
  • In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    We construe criminal statutes of limitations “liberally in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.” , see also Taylor, , 148 P.3d at 86 .
  • Olin Gene Taylor, John Adrian Johnson v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Taylor v. Cruikshank 148 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Taylor v. Cruikshank 148 P.3d 84 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶ 9 In addition, Arizona follows the minority view that criminal statutes of limitation are jurisdictional, constituting “a limitation upon the power of the sovereign to act against the accused.” , , and Martin, 135 Ariz. at 100 , 659 P.2d at 653 ; see Jackson, n. 11 , 90 P.3d at 799 n. 11 (noting that basis for holding in Fogel has since been questioned).
  • Olin Gene Taylor, John Adrian Johnson v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶9 In addition, Arizona follows the minority view that criminal statutes of limitation are jurisdictional, constituting “a limitation upon the power of the sovereign to act against the accused.” 1 The criminalist actually testified that the laboratory had been connected to CODIS in November 2000.
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    222, 227, 8 8 S. Ct. 926, 929, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1055, 10 59 (1968 ); , 248, 744 (1972).
  • State v. Escobar-Mendez 986 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Escobar-Mendez 986 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    in which we read: Statutes of limitation in criminal cases are designed primarily to protect the accused from the burden of defending himself against charges of long completed misconduct.
  • Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1984
  • Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 384 Ariz. 1984
  • Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Price v. Maxwell 681 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • Martin v. Superior Court 659 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1983
  • Martin v. Superior Court 659 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1983
    : “Statutes of limitation in criminal cases are designed primarily to protect the accused from the burden of defending himself against charges of long completed misconduct.
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 13.5(b), the court has authority to amend an indictment “only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” , our Court of Appeals held that an indictment may not be amended by the court to charge new and different matters of substance without the concurrence of the grand jury.
  • State v. Jacobson 504 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Jacobson 504 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    we held that an amendment of substance to an indictment returned by the grand jury is not permitted, i. e., the consent of the grand jury is required to' amend an indictment to charge new and different matters of substance.