Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Johnson, 8 P.3d 1159.

44 citing documents.

State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
–49 ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2000) (prejudice existed because the defendant was prevented from challenging an inconsistent statement or conducting a proper cross examination).
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McKinney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 4 STATE v. MCKINNEY Decision of the Court 57 (App. 2000).
State v. Street Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Street Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 4 (App. 2000) (order granting motion to amend indictment reviewed for abuse of discretion).
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Laws Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Laws Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A defect is formal or technical “when its amendment does not operate to change the 4 STATE v. LAWS Decision of the Court nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.” ¶ 5 (App. 2000).
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Tackett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 Defendant’s is unavailing.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The rule itself limits this, however, “to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” Id.; ¶ 18, ¶ 5
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13-1421 as evidence the victim falsely 4 Hayes’s P.3d 1159 (App. 2001) is unavailing.
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Motten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
See, e.g., Sustaita, 119 Ariz. at 591, 583 P.2d at 247; ¶ 7, (citing examples of permissible and impermissible amendments under Rule 13.5(b)); see also Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 19, 68 P.3d at 440 (“common theme” of cases permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 13.5(b)
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
¶ 4 , (citation omitted)
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Similarly, P.3d 1159 (App. 2000), this court vacated convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and child molestation when the trial testimony showed entirely different sexual acts than those specified in the charging document and the trial court permitted the state to amend the information to conform to that evidence.