Legal Opinion

State v. Freeney

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 2009No. CR-08-0363-PRPublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PELANDER, Justice.

¶ 1 Absent the defendant’s consent, a criminal “charge may be amended only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects.” Ariz. R.Crim. P. 13.5(b). In this case, the State moved to amend the indictment on the first day of trial to change the theory of the assault underlying its sole charge of aggravated assault. See Ariz.Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 13-1203CA), 13-1204(A) (Supp.2008). The trial court granted the motion, over Mark Allen Freeney’s objection, and the jury found him guilty of the amended charge.

¶ 2 Because the elements of the amended charge…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. United States v. MechanikSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. State v. HendersonArizona Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. RingArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Jim R. Hunter v. State of New Mexico Attorney General of the State of New Mexico Robert J. Tansey, Warden, New Mexico State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State v. LehrArizona Supreme Court · 2011
  2. United States v. Ruben Sahagun-GallegosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  3. State of Arizona v. David J. WallerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
  4. State of Arizona v. Christepher E. LuaArizona Supreme Court · 2015
  5. State v. CottenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011

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

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

Powered by the Exa API