Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Suarez, 470 P.2d 675.

28 citing documents.

State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Freeney 207 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
This court has held, pursuant to state due process requirements, that a charging document must “fairly indieate[] the crime charged; state[] the essential elements of the alleged crime; and [be] sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant so that he can prepare his defense to the charge.” , ( , ).
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, , (Ap
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
indicates the crime charged; states the essential elements of the alleged crime; and is sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant so that he can prepare his defense to the charge, (citation omitted) The test of * * * sufficiency * * * is whether in a subsequent prosecution for the unlawful act described in the information the defendant could plead the [indictment] as a bar.”
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Bruce 610 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1980
State v. Williams, supra.
State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Archer 603 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Here, , , that portion of Rule 13.5(b) is particularly applicable, which provides: “The charging document shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at any court proceeding.” , permitting the amendment of an information to correct the address of an alleged burglary under the old criminal rules.
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
A , : “An information is legally sufficient if it fairly indicates the crime charged; states the essential elements of the alleged crime; and is sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant so that he can prepare his defense to the charge.” In that the information failed to apprise appellee
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the court established the substantive test as follows: “This Court has previously held that an information is legally sufficient if it fairly indicates the crime charged; states the essential elements of the alleged crime; and is sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant so that he can prep
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Mallory 504 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Andrus 495 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970
State v. Bray 472 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1970