Court of Appeals of Arizona· 7/19/1983

State v. Suarez

Citations

137 Ariz. 368
670 P.2d 1192
1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 531

How courts have described this case

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

noting the dollar amount alleged in an indictment for fraudulent scheme was “surplusage” because dollar amount was not a required element under the statute
“A scheme to defraud . . . implies a plan, and numerous acts may be committed in furtherance of that plan.”
“A scheme to defraud thus implies a plan, and numerous acts may be committed in furtherance of that plan.”
State can charge separate fraudulent acts pursuant to single scheme as a single count of fraudulent schemes and artifices
the error was a “technical defect . . . because it did not change either the nature of the offense charged nor did it prejudice [the defendant] in any way”
unnecessary statutory reference in indictment was properly deleted as surplusage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Contreras, Corcoran, Schmidt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 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.