A defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged on the ground of variance between
the allegation and proof if the essential elements of the crime are correctly stated
in the indictment, information, or complaint, unless the defendant is prejudiced in
his or her defense by the variance. The defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged
by reason of an immaterial misnomer of a third party, by reason of an immaterial mistake
in the description of the property or its ownership, by reason of failure to prove
unnecessary allegations in the description of the crime, or by reason of any other
immaterial mistake in the indictment, information, or complaint.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1966–2009 · leading case:
State v. McParlin, 422 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1980).
State v. McParlin, 422 A.2d 742 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 8× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-12-10, so long as the essential elements of the offense are stated in the indictment, a judgment of acquittal is appropriate only if the variance causes prejudice.”
State v. Markarian, 551 A.2d 1178 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-12-10 deals with the discharge of a criminal defendant on the grounds of variance.”
State v. Mollicone, 654 A.2d 311 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 3× “General Laws 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-12-10 clearly states that a defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged on the ground of a variance between allegation and proof or by virtue of an immaterial misnomer of a third party.”
State v. Grullon, 984 A.2d 46 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 4× “General Laws 1956 § 12-12-10 provides that “[a] defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged on the ground of variance between the allegation and proof if the essential elements of the crime are correctly stated in the indictment, information, or complaint, unless the…”
State v. Gilman, 291 A.2d 425 (R.I. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Section 12-12-10 states that a defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged because of an “immaterial mistake” in a complaint or an indictment.”
State v. Donato, 414 A.2d 797 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-12-10, as amended by P.L.1974, ch. 118, § 11.”
State v. McKenna, 512 A.2d 113 (R.I. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Here, defendant clearly was not prejudiced by the judge’s instruction that the prosecution did not have to prove when the alleged act occurred, but only that “the act did occur on some particular day.” Were defendant to have produced alibi witnesses or testimony consistent…”
State v. Cembrola, 469 A.2d 362 (R.I. 1983).
“1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 12-12-10. State v. McParlin, R.I., 422 A.”
State v. Harris, 300 A.2d 267 (R.I. 1973).
· cites it 2× “He relied in part upon §12-12-10. Where material, that section reads as follows: “A defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged on the ground of variance between the allegation and proof if the essential elements of the crime are correctly stated in the complaint or…”
State v. Colasanti, 216 A.2d 700 (R.I. 1966).
“1956, §12-12-10, wherein it is provided: “A defendant shall not be acquitted or discharged on the ground of variance between the allegation and proof if the essential elements of the crime are correctly stated in the complaint or indictment, unless he is thereby prejudiced in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.