State v. Jonas

Decision Date04 May 1976
Docket NumberNo. 1,CA-CR,1
Citation26 Ariz.App. 379,548 P.2d 1191
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Glenn Steven JONAS, Appellant. 1400.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
OPINION

SCHROEDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for embezzlement. The issue is whether the amendment of an indictment to substitute the name of the appellant's true employer was permissible under the terms of Rule 13.5, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, permitting amendments to correct technical errors. We hold that because the amendment did not in any way alter the basis of the charge or bring about the admission of any evidence not previously available to the appellant, but involved purely a substitution of name, the amendment was proper.

The appellant, Glenn Steven Jonas, was charged by indictment with 12 counts of embezzlement. He was convicted of one count, the other counts having been dismissed on directed verdict. He was sentenced to a term of 1 to 10 years.

The original indictment named 'The Greyhound Corporation' as appellant's employer from whom the appellant made the alleged embezzlements. In the beginning stages for the trial, when it was apparent that the appellant's actual employer and victim of the embezzlements was a company known as the Burn Treatment Skin Bank, the court permitted the introduction of evidence relating to that corporation. It did so upon the prosecutor's avowal that he would show the actual connection between the Greyhound Corporation and the Burn Treatment Skin Bank.

As the trial continued, the State did not prove the precise relationship between the two corporations, and moved instead that the indictment be amended to strike 'Greyhound Corporation' and to substitute in its place 'Burn Treatment Skin Bank.' The State's motion was granted over appellant's objection. Because the court wished to eliminate any possible double jeopardy problems, the amendment was granted upon the express agreement by the State that it would not use the evidence in this case as the basis for any further prosecutions. Appellant's motion for mistrial was denied.

Rule 13.5(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, expressly provides that the charging document, whether indictment or information, 'may be amended only to correct mistakes of fact or remedy formal or technical defects, unless the defendant consents to the amendment.' As the comment to the rule explains, it is intended to follow the principle laid down in State v. Butler, 9 Ariz.App. 162, 450 P.2d 128 (1969), that amendments to the charging document should be permitted when the nature of the offense charged remains the same. Absent the defendant's consent, an amendment altering the legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Cons
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 2004
    ...defects"; charging document deemed amended to conform to evidence). Consequently, Cons's reliance on Rule 13.5(b) and State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App. 379, 548 P.2d 1191 (1976), is misplaced because both relate to the amendment of actual ¶ 5 Nor is Cons's reliance on State v. Benak, 199 Ariz. 3......
  • State v. LaBarre, 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1977
    ...and this amendment was no more than that. We find no error. See State v. Williams, 108 Ariz. 382, 499 P.2d 97 (1972); State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App. 379, 548 P.2d 1191 (1976). FAILURE TO QUESTION THE JURY ON CONVERSATION CONDUCTED IN FRONT OF THE During a recess in the selection of the jury, ......
  • State v. Phelps
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 1979
    ...of the charges, thus being unable to defend against them, State v. Harrison, 111 Ariz. 508, 533 P.2d 1143 (1975); State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App. 379, 548 P.2d 1191 (1976), and (2) an acquittal of the amended charge must provide a double jeopardy defense to a subsequent prosecution on the orig......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2000
    ...corporation, State v. Barber, 133 Ariz. 572, 653 P.2d 29 (App.1982),approved, 133 Ariz. 549, 653 P.2d 6 (1982); State v. Jonas, 26 Ariz.App. 379, 548 P.2d 1191 (1976). An impermissible amendment, on the other hand, sought to amend a sodomy offense alleged to have occurred in a shower stall ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT