Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bruce, 610 P.2d 55.

60 citing documents.

State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Fattouch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶22 “A defect [in an indictment] may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Strover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.” (citations omitted).
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
State v. Bedonie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bedonie Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(finding a formal or technical defect exists when the “amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”).
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Micalizzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
VI, “[a] defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way,”
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Chambers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Ponce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A defect is formal or technical “when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 247 ¶ 5 ().
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
.” “A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Further, “A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Farr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
P. 13.5(b); (rejecting similar claim, noting a “defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way”).
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Mayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A defect is “formal or technical” when “its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gibson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moran v. Hon. miles/montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-24, -58 (1980); (permitting amendment to perjury charge to conform to evidence that date of hearing at which defendant perjured himself was September 11, 1979, rather than August 11, 1979, as alleged in indictment).
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 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
.” “A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
State v. Freeney 219 P.3d 1039 Ariz. 2009
“A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
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
¶ 22 Generally, “a technical or formal defect in a charging document may be remedied whenever such defect is presented.” , (citations 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
P., 17 A.R.S., allows a trial court to amend an indictment “only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” A defect is formal or technical when the amendment correcting it “‘does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.’” Johnson, 8 P.3d at 1161
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
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
he charging document shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at any court proceeding,” but a charge may be amended “only to correct mistakes of fact or [to] remedy formal or technical defects.” “A defect may be considered formal or technical when its amendment does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.”
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Medina 836 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Medina 836 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
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