Cited by

¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” ¶¶ 16, 18, see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22, 312 P.3d at 129 (finding that amendment changing the location of the crime was not prejudicial because

(if elements of one offense differ from those of another, they are distinct and separate crimes); Black’s Law Dictionary 634 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “elements of crime” as “constituent parts,” usually including mens rea); see also Brown, 284 P.3d at 988 (in considering whether statu

) permits amendment of an indictment “to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects,” and provides that the indictment “shall be deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at any court proceeding.” A defect is “formal or technical” if its correction “does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way.” ¶ 11, (citation omitted).

6 STATE V. LUA Opinion of the Court ¶17 Nor is the Sixth Amendment violated where, as here, the defendant “had actual notice of the charge, from either the indictment or other sources,” and is therefore not “actually prejudiced by a new or amended charge.” ¶ 29, (emphasis added); see also id.

Thus, by its terms, Rule 13.5(b) applies only where there is a “mistake or defect in the indictment.” ¶ 18

he two subsections of the simple (non-aggravated) assault statute, § 13-1203, on which these convictions were based – assault causing physical injury under (A)(1) and reasonable apprehension assault under (A)(2) – comprise distinct offenses, “not merely different manners of committing the same offense.” ¶29, ¶¶16-20

Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d at 607; -16, ¶ 31, -45 (2009) (holding harmless error review applies when defendant objects to amendments to an indictment).

“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.” ¶ 11, (citation omitted).

¶¶ 16–17, (“[S]ubsections of 13–1203(A) are not simply variants of a single, unified offense; they are different crimes.”); (“[T]hese two types

“When the elements of one offense materially differ from those of another – even if the two are defined in subsections of the same statute – they are distinct and separate crimes.” ¶ 16

¶ 16 , (citing cases); -16 , -26 (1993) (upholding kidnapping conviction where jury instructions allowed guilty verdict without unanimity as to the kidnapper’s purpose, which could include, among other things, the intent to inf

The State argues, however, that the error was harmless, P.3d 1039 (2009).

shall be a plain, concise statement of the facts sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the offense charged.”); ¶¶ 16-17, (expanded indictment which included other subsection of statute effectively amended indictment and changed nature of offense).