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. Jones, 937 P.2d 1182.

31 citing documents.

  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    4 STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court ¶14 An amendment to an indictment is permitted if it “does not change the nature of the offense charged or prejudice the defendant in any way.” ¶ 11 (2012).
  • State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Justin Alexander Copeland 509 P.3d 412 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
    See § 13-1410; (date of offense not element of sexual assault), Jones, 792 P.2d at 655, 657 (specific date, time, place, or circumstances not elements of molestation and prosecution utilizing generic testimony does not, of itself, violate due proc
  • State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    (“An error as to the date of the offense alleged in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense, and therefore may be remedied by amendment.”).
  • State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    P. 13.5(b); abrogated on other grounds by
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Ferrero 274 P.3d 509 Ariz. 2012
    - 4 - to the common law rule — now codified in Rule 404(b) — barring admission of other acts to prove a defendant’s propensity to act in a certain way.2 See, State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 534, 539
  • State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
  • State of Arizona v. Michael Lorenzo Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
    “When the amendment results in no change in the underlying offense or actual prejudice to the defendant, the indictment is automatically deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at trial.”
  • State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. West 233 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (improper statements in closing argument may require new trial if they affected verdict).
  • State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State v. Lopez 175 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    See Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 199 , 735 P.2d at 809 (doctor testified that cause of injury was “critical to effective diagnosis and treatment”); , (child sexual assault victim’s statement about circumstances of assaults admissible under Rule 803(4)).
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    3 (“[a]ny defect in the dates alleged in the indictment .
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
    Taylor, 160 Ariz. at 422 , 773 P.2d at 981 (eighty-five consecutive life sentences for a total of 2975 years for sexual exploitation and sexual conduct with minors); , (six consecutive twenty-five-year sentences for sexual assault); , (three consecutive twenty-year sentences for child molestation); , (twenty-five-year sentence for one count of sexu
  • State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Feld v. Gerst 66 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    See, , (child molestation involving the same victim); Garcia, 200 Ariz. at 472, ¶ 3 , 28 P.3d at 328 (child molestation); ¶ 7 , (child molestation/sexual misconduct with minor); , (child molestation); Salazar, 181 Ariz. at 90 , 887 P.2d at 620 (App.1994)(attempted child molestation; evidence of prior rapes of twelve and fourteen year old girls may be admissible to show sexually aberrant propensity); , (A
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • 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
    ¶7 Hence, permissible amendments include those that change a charge of theft by control of property valued at $1,000 or greater to a more specific charge of theft of a motor vehicle, , 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 Ari
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (finding 404(b) analysis unnecessary when similar sex offense committed against same victim was admissible to show defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward particular victim).
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Alatorre 953 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    der whether it was necessary to “complete the story.” 5 *213 ¶ 16 “In a case involving a sex offense committed against a child, evidence of a prior similar sex offense committed against the same child is admissible to show the defendant’s lewd disposition or unnatural attitude toward the particular victim.” , , (relying on Gamer to affirm trial court’s evidentiary ruling without considering propriety of court’s conclusion that evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b)).