Cervantes v. People

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• considering the fact that an information included a citation to the statute defining the crime being charged when examining whether an information provided adequate notice
• upholding a trial court’s jurisdiction to hear a motion to amend the information that was made after the jury was sworn, but before any verdict had been reached, when the amendment was one of form and did not affect defendant’s substantial rights
• upholding a trial court’s jurisdiction to hear a motion to amend the information that was made after the jury was sworn, but before any verdict had been reached, when the amendment was one of form and did not affect defendant’s substantial rights
• \[A]n information that fails to charge an essential element of an offense is defective.\
• “Crim. P. 7(e) is to be construed liberally to avoid the dismissal of cases for technical irregularities in an information that can be cured through amendment.”
• \[T]he information without the amendment was adequate to direct Cervantes' attention to [the statute under which he was charged].\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).