Court of Appeals of Arizona· 11/19/1996

State v. Jones

Citations

937 P.2d 1182
188 Ariz. 534
230 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 24
1996 Ariz. App. LEXIS 247

How courts have described this case

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

noting doctor’s questions to child victim “were routine in sex abuse cases”
noting doctor’s questions to child victim “were routine in sex abuse cases”
“When the amendment results in no change in the underlying offense or actual prejudice to the defendant, the indictment is automatically deemed amended to conform to the evidence adduced at trial”
“An error as to the date of the offense alleged in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense, and therefore may be remedied by amendment.”
“[a]ny defect in the dates alleged in the indictment . . . could not have prejudiced [the defendant’s] defense” when “his sole defense was that [the victim] was lying”
improper statements in closing argument may require new trial if they affected verdict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Weisberg, Fidel, Garbarino

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.