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. Barber, 653 P.2d 29.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    “In determining whether the offense was changed or the defendant prejudiced,” a reviewing court considers whether the amendment violated a defendant’s “right to ‘notice of the charges’” and whether the defendant had an “‘ample opportunity to prepare to defend against them.’” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248 ¶ 8 ().
  • State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    (noting propriety of amendment to an indictment hinges on whether the amendment violated the defendant’s right to “notice of the charges against him with an ample opportunity to prepare to defend against them”); see also Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 13 (“To be meaningful, an ‘ample opportunity to prep
  • State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Hirsch v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, n.2, ¶ 1 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2003), ).
  • State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hirsch v. Arizona Corp. Commission 352 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 2 , , (noting, in reviewing whether evidence of securities-related crimes was sufficient for presentation to the jury, "all reasonable inferences must be resolved against the appellant”).
  • State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. David J. Waller 333 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    A duplicitous indictment “charges two or more distinct offenses in a single count.”
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“fully developed” information would bar subsequent action filed against defendant for same offense); (“A double jeopardy defense is not limited to the four corners of the indictment.”).
  • State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
    E.g., Gray v. Raines, 662 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1981); ( ).
  • Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    162, 165 , changing a corporate name from National Hospitalization, Inc. to National Hospital Plan Insurance Agency in a securities fraud proceeding, , or changing the date of the offense by one day when defendant knew long before trial of the correct date, Bruce, 125 Ariz. at 423 , 610 P.2d at 57 .
  • State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Johnson 8 P.3d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    .2d 999 (1994); correct one digit of a four-digit address of a burglarized place, , correct a date, Bruce; , correct a duplicitous indictment to allege only one offense, State v. O’Haire, , or correct the name of the victim corporation, , approved, , State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App.
  • 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
    section 13-107, Defendant unaccountably argues that the statute begins to "run” when the offense is completed, not when it is discovered by the State, , approved
  • State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Delgado 848 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    : In determining the propriety of an amendment to an indictment to conform to the evidence, this court must consider whether the allowing of that amendment would violate two important rights of the defendant, to wit: (1) the defendant must have been put on notice of the charges against
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Tober 826 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Taylor 773 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1989
    aff'd., , State v. O’Brien
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. O'Haire 720 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Schneider 715 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Barber 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982