PER CURIAM:
The issue in this case is whether the district judge who presided over the defendant's preliminary examination erred in denying the prosecutor's motion to amend count II to charge third-degree criminal sexual conduct, instead of gross indecency between males. We are persuaded that the amendment should have been allowed.
I
The defendant was charged in a complaint and warrant with gross indecency between males
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.