Legal Opinion

Stang v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 2, 1981No. 79-2286PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

Appellant argues that his otherwise proper conviction on two counts of forgery should be reversed solely because the information and statement of particulars under which the state went to trial erroneously listed April 27, 1979 as the date of the offenses. As appellant knew at the time of trial, the offenses had occurred a week earlier, on April 20. After several witnesses had testified, the state realized that the date listed in the charging documents was incorrect and successfully moved to amend the statement of particulars. The trial court then essentially sought to start…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. State v. BeamonSupreme Court of Florida · 1974
  3. Hoffman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  4. Howlett v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972
  5. Hoffman v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stang v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  2. Gaines v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  3. State v. ShawDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  4. Stang v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API