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. Kelly, 597 P.2d 177.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    P. 13.5(b) (“Unless the defendant consents, a charge may be amended only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.”), we find no prejudice because Aulbach was on notice that he could be convicted of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor DUI, (explaining that it was error to “amend an indictment for armed robbery to robbery” because to do so was a “change in substance,” but that 3 To the extent Aulbach suggests his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, any such issu
  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    MILES/MONTGOMERY Decision of the Court ¶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.”) ( ).
  • State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Hence, Defendant failed 7 In fact, they even are not always “inherently suggestive.” See, -27, -80 (1979) (one-man show-up is permissible when made at the scene of the crime or near the time of the crime, and the fairness of a prior identification is an issue for the trial court’s determination).
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
  • State v. Cheramie 189 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2008
    ¶ 18, (requiring lesser-included offense instruction when evidence supports conviction of lesser-included offense); (finding no - 4 - prejudicial error when indictment was amended from armed robbery to robbery); see also Gov’t of V.I.
  • 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
    Rule 13.2(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; , (amending charge of armed robbery to robbery, while a change in the nature of the offense and therefore technically error, was not reversible because robbery is a lesser-included offense).
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • 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
    reversed on other grounds
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Waggoner 697 P.2d 320 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Rodriquez 700 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Fowler 670 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Godfrey 666 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Godfrey 666 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Grijalva 667 P.2d 1336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Davis 672 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Rybolt 650 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Barrett 644 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Zuck 658 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Carriger 599 P.2d 788 Ariz. 1979