State v. Eppens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the amended charges could not relate back to the original charge if they could increase the minimum sentence or the stigma associated with each charge,
• holding that amendment to one count of grand larceny in first amended information to charge four counts of grand larceny in second amended information was invalid as to all but one count of larceny in second amended information
• considering trial court's oral decision only to extent it was consistent with court's written order
• permitting State to amend information after time limit had passed based “on the relation back doctrine, embodied in CR 15(c) and applicable to criminal cases”
• holding “an amended pleading relates back to the filing date of its predecessor so long as the claim in the pleading ‘arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading’ ”
• considering trial court’s oral decision only to extent it was consistent with court’s written order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).