Court of Appeals of Arizona· 5/22/2003

State v. Sanders

Citations

68 P.3d 434
205 Ariz. 208

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 Sixth Amendment \is violated by an amendment that actually modifies an essential element of the offense charged\
holding \these two types of assault are in fact distinctly different crimes\ and that the amendment \changed the nature of the originally charged offense\
concluding A.R.S. § 13- 1203(A)(2) and (A)(3) have different elements and are therefore “distinctly different crimes”
asserting that the Arizona Supreme Court drafted Rule 13.5(b) as the procedural \mechanism\ to regulate compliance with a defendant's Sixth Amendment right \to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation\
stating Supreme Court in Dixon held Blockburger test “is the only permissible interpretation of the double jeopardy clause”
noting in dictum that Dixon would appear to permit separate prosecution for two methods of committing aggravated assault on a police officer based on one event because each contained distinctly different elements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sult, Fidel, Hall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 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.