Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 N.E.2d 708 - Sharp v. State

Sharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Williams v. Tharp (2009), Fajardo v. State (2007)

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

3801989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Wagner v. State · Jethroe v. State · Roberts v. State · Lámar v. State · Lamar v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An amendment is one of form and not substance if a defense under the original information would be equally available after the amendment and the accused's evidence would apply equally to the information in either form. Further, an amendment is of substance only if it is essential to making a valid charge of the crime.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “such clarity that it does not lead to jury speculation as to its contents,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"(a) An indictment or information which charges the commission of an offense may not be dismissed but may be amended on motion by the prosecuting attorney at any time because of any +mmaterial defect, including: (1) Any miswriting, misspelling, or grammatical error; (2) Any misjoinder of parties defendant or offenses charged; (3) The presence of any unnecessary repugnant allegation; (4) The failure to negate any exception, exeuse, or provision contained in the statute defining the offense; (5) The use of alternative or digjune-tive allegations as to the acts, means, intents, or results charged; (6) Any mistake in the name of the court or county in the title of the action, or the statutory provision alleged to have been violated; (7) The failure to state the time or place at which the offense was committed where the time or place is not of the essence of the offense; (8) The failure to state an amount of value or price of any matter where that value or price is not of the essence of the offense; or (9) Any other defect which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant. (b) The indictment or information may be amended in matters of substance or form, and the names of material witnesses may be added, by the prosecuting attorney, upon giving written notice to the defendant, at any time up to: (1) Thirty (80) days if the defendant is charged with a felony; or (2) Fifteen (15) days if the defendant is charged only with one (1) or more misdemeanors; before the omnibus”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.