Arizona Supreme Court· 4/2/1980

State v. Bruce

Citations

610 P.2d 55
125 Ariz. 421
1980 Ariz. LEXIS 198

How courts have described this case

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

finding that where defense counsel had notice of discrepancies in dates before trial began, amending the indictment to correct the dates was not prejudicial
explaining that the type of formal or technical defect that may be remedied pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) is one that “does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way”
explaining that the type of formal or technical defect that may be remedied pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) is one that \does not operate to change the nature of the offense charged or to prejudice the defendant in any way\
rejecting defendant’s prejudice argument when the record shows the defendant “had notice of the discrepancies . . . well before trial.”
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.”
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

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gordon, Struckmeyer, Holohan, Hays, Cameron

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.