typographical error in Arizona

2020Further: In 1996, [the Arizona Supreme Court] determined that [it] would “no longer issue qualified approvals for any jury instructions.” As a result, the State Bar of Arizona created standard jury instructions and renamed them the “Revised Arizona Jury Instructions.” A notice accompanying the instructions warns users of the new RAJI that “these instructions, as a group, have not received any approval from the Arizona Supreme Court.” See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 566, ¶ 12 (2001) (quoting RAJI (Criminal) iii (2000)). 5 STATE v. FARID Opinion of the Court 4.

2020Further: In 1996, [the Arizona Supreme Court] determined that [it] would “no longer issue qualified approvals for any jury instructions.” As a result, the State Bar of Arizona created standard jury instructions and renamed them the “Revised Arizona Jury Instructions.” A notice accompanying the instructions warns users of the new RAJI that “these instructions, as a group, have not received any approval from the Arizona Supreme Court.” See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 566, ¶ 12 (2001) (quoting RAJI (Criminal) iii (2000)). 5 STATE v. FARID Opinion of the Court 4.

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2023See State v. Bowles, 173 Ariz. 214, 216 (App. 1992); State v. Stevens, 173 Ariz. 2 As our supreme court has explained, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” broadly encompasses any conduct that violates a defendant’s constitutional rights and “sweeps in prosecutorial conduct ranging from inadvertent error or innocent mistake to intentional misconduct.” State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543, 548, ¶ 12 (2021) (quoting In re Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 469, ¶ 45 (2020)). 4 STATE v. FULLEN Decision of the Court 494, 496 (App. 1992).

2023See State v. Bowles, 173 Ariz. 214, 216 (App. 1992); State v. Stevens, 173 Ariz. 2 As our supreme court has explained, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” broadly encompasses any conduct that violates a defendant’s constitutional rights and “sweeps in prosecutorial conduct ranging from inadvertent error or innocent mistake to intentional misconduct.” State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543, 548, ¶ 12 (2021) (quoting In re Martinez, 248 Ariz. 458 , 469, ¶ 45 (2020)). 4 STATE v. FULLEN Decision of the Court 494, 496 (App. 1992).

2021See In re Marbella P., 223 Ariz. 159 , 160 n.3 (App. 2009) (construing omission of word “not” from transcript as a typographical error because the court’s intention was clear). 5 JOSHUA W. v. DCS, E.W.

2020See State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, 517 (2002); see also State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555 , 556–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”). ¶11 During direct examination, the State asked Officer Haley to explain why he wrote “Fagurski” instead of “Robertson” in his initial police report.

2020See State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, 517 (2002); see also State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555 , 556–57 (1974) (“No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury.”). ¶11 During direct examination, the State asked Officer Haley to explain why he wrote “Fagurski” instead of “Robertson” in his initial police report.

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2016Moreover, the defendant must also show that he or she has “suffered actual prejudice from an amendment.” Johnson, 198 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 8 , 8 P.3d at 1162 . ¶8 In State v. Freeney, our supreme court defined when an amendment is material, and also noted that permissible amendments “have corrected dates, names, addresses, and even a statutory section number, when the defendants had adequate notice of the intended charge and the typographical error was first discovered shortly before trial.” 223 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 16, 18 , 219 P.3d 1039, 1042 (2009); see Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. at 330, ¶¶ 19-22

2009Corp., 384 Ill.App.3d 806 , 323 Ill.Dec. 475 , 893 N.E.2d 949, 964 (2008) (assuming that the trial transcript contained a typographical error, such as omitting the word "not,” because the sentence as written contradicted the trial court’s conclusion).

2009Corp., 384 Ill.App.3d 806 , 323 Ill.Dec. 475 , 893 N.E.2d 949, 964 (2008) (assuming that the trial transcript contained a typographical error, such as omitting the word "not,” because the sentence as written contradicted the trial court’s conclusion).

2009See, e.g., Sustaita, 119 Ariz. at 591 , 583 P.2d at 247 ; State v. Johnson, 198 Ariz. 245 , 247 ¶ 7, 8 P.3d 1159, 1161 (App.2000) (citing examples of permissible and impermissible amendments under Rule 13.5(b)); see also Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 19, 68 P.3d at 440 (“common theme” of cases permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) “is that the defect is minor and correcting it does no harm to the defendant’s ability to defend himself’). ¶ 19 Here, however, as in Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 20, 68 P.3d at 440 , the amendment did not correct a mistake of fact or remedy a formal or technic

2009See, e.g., Sustaita, 119 Ariz. at 591 , 583 P.2d at 247 ; State v. Johnson, 198 Ariz. 245 , 247 ¶ 7, 8 P.3d 1159, 1161 (App.2000) (citing examples of permissible and impermissible amendments under Rule 13.5(b)); see also Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 19, 68 P.3d at 440 (“common theme” of cases permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) “is that the defect is minor and correcting it does no harm to the defendant’s ability to defend himself’). ¶ 19 Here, however, as in Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 20, 68 P.3d at 440 , the amendment did not correct a mistake of fact or remedy a formal or technic

2009See, e.g., Sustaita, 119 Ariz. at 591 , 583 P.2d at 247 ; State v. Johnson, 198 Ariz. 245 , 247 ¶ 7, 8 P.3d 1159, 1161 (App.2000) (citing examples of permissible and impermissible amendments under Rule 13.5(b)); see also Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 19, 68 P.3d at 440 (“common theme” of cases permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) “is that the defect is minor and correcting it does no harm to the defendant’s ability to defend himself’). ¶ 19 Here, however, as in Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 20, 68 P.3d at 440 , the amendment did not correct a mistake of fact or remedy a formal or technic

2009See, e.g., Sustaita, 119 Ariz. at 591 , 583 P.2d at 247 ; State v. Johnson, 198 Ariz. 245 , 247 ¶ 7, 8 P.3d 1159, 1161 (App.2000) (citing examples of permissible and impermissible amendments under Rule 13.5(b)); see also Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 19, 68 P.3d at 440 (“common theme” of cases permitting amendments pursuant to Rule 13.5(b) “is that the defect is minor and correcting it does no harm to the defendant’s ability to defend himself’). ¶ 19 Here, however, as in Sanders, 205 Ariz. at 214 ¶ 20, 68 P.3d at 440 , the amendment did not correct a mistake of fact or remedy a formal or technic

1998See also Glick, 123 Ariz. at 398 , 599 P.2d at 851 (although there was a typographical error in the legal description of property to be annexed, map attached to annexation ordinance was accurate; therefore, “minor and not misleading discrepancies between the legal description and the map [were] not fatal to the validity of the annexation”). ¶ 13 It is not a technical error of which Miami complains here, nor does it argue that anyone was or could have been misled by the annexation process; rather, it argues that Globe was without jurisdiction to *181 annex the parcel because it was not contiguo

1998See also Glick, 123 Ariz. at 398 , 599 P.2d at 851 (although there was a typographical error in the legal description of property to be annexed, map attached to annexation ordinance was accurate; therefore, “minor and not misleading discrepancies between the legal description and the map [were] not fatal to the validity of the annexation”). ¶ 13 It is not a technical error of which Miami complains here, nor does it argue that anyone was or could have been misled by the annexation process; rather, it argues that Globe was without jurisdiction to *181 annex the parcel because it was not contiguo