State v. Tumbleston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a three-year time frame in an indictment for CSC was sufficient when the indictment adequately notified the defendant of the charges against him
• concluding the indictments were sufficient because \they contain[ed] the necessary elements of the offenses charged and sufficiently apprise[d] Tumbleston that he must be prepared to address his conduct toward [the victim] between 2001 and June 2004\
• explaining an indictment providing a three- year time frame in which the alleged sexual conduct occurred sufficiently apprised the defendant of the offense charged
• finding time frame is not material to committing a lewd act on a minor and enlarging the time frame of an indictment for this offense is not improper
• stating \indictments for a sex crime that allege offenses occurred during a specified time period are sufficient when the circumstances of the case warrant considering an extended time frame\
• stating a trial court should evaluate the sufficiency of an indictment by considering whether (1) the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity for the court to know what judgment to pronounce and the defendant to know what he is being charged with and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).