Pueblo v. Orta

How courts have described this case

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

• analyzing simultaneously whether the accused was misled by the changed dates and whether the changes had prejudiced his defense on the merits
• “[T]here can be no ques- tion that the accused was not misled or prejudiced in his de- fense on the merits.” (emphasis added)
• “[W]here time is not of the essence, it is the general rule that an erroneous statement of the date of the offense constitutes a matter of mere form, and amendments are freely permitted where they do not operate to change the nature of the crime charged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).