Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 15-8-90 (2026)
When Allowed.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
An indictment may be amended, with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described.
(Code 1852, §593; Code 1867, §4143; Code 1876, §4816; Code 1886, §4389; Code 1896, §4917; Code 1907, §7155; Code 1923, §4550; Code 1940, T. 15, §253.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1978–2010 · leading case: Ex Parte Allred, 393 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1981).
Ex Parte Allred, 393 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1981). “, the State sought to amend the indictment pursuant to § 15-8-90, Code 1975, which authorizes an indictment to be amended, with consent of Defendant, as to certain matters.”
Johnson v. State, 820 So. 2d 842 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “" See also § 15-8-90, Code of Alabama 1975. If the defendant does not consent to the amendment, then the procedure is to send the case back to the grand jury so that a new indictment may be issued.”
Ex Parte Collins, 385 So. 2d 1005 (Ala. 1980). “In the case at bar the trial was terminated because of an erroneous indictment in accordance with Code 1975, §§ 15-8-90, -91. These statutory provisions provide, respectively, that where there exists a variance, defined as an incorrect description of property or as an incorrect…”
City of Dothan v. Holloway, 501 So. 2d 1136 (Ala. 1986). “A different situation exists with respect to a totally, and therefore fatally, defective indictment or a prosecution commenced without an indictment at all where one was required under Amendment 37, supra.”
Allen v. State, 472 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “"Thus, the ultimate issue here presented is whether Defendant's plea of double jeopardy was interposed to an indictment which charged him with commission of the same offense for which he had been put to trial under the first indictment.”
Moore v. State, 366 So. 2d 1150 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). “We think the trial court took the proper course in holding that there was not substantial evidence to support the averment as to fear, that there was a variance between the averment and the proof.”
Pinkard v. State, 415 So. 2d 1220 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). “NOTES [1] The cited sections of Code 1876 contain the same language as that of Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 15-8-90, 15-8-91, 15-8-110 and 15-8-131, respectively.”
Bester v. State, 362 So. 2d 1282 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978). “The appellant pled guilty to that offense and was sentenced to life imprisonment, which under the first degree murder statute preserves the appellant’s future eligibility to be considered for parole.”
Ex Parte Verzone, 868 So. 2d 399 (Ala. 2003). “[3] Section 15-8-90, Ala.Code 1975, provides: "An indictment may be amended, with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described.”
State v. McClendon, 4 So. 3d 1202 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “The Alabama Legislature has provided authority for directing the procedure for a "variance" dismissal and for reindictment in the event of Defendant's nonconsent of an amendment to an indictment.”
Hayes v. State, 65 So. 3d 486 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). ““Section 15-8-90, Ala.Code 1975, provides: ‘An indictment may be amended, with the consent of the defendant entered of record, when the name of the defendant is incorrectly stated or when any person, property or matter therein stated is incorrectly described.”
Allred v. State, 393 So. 2d 1026 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). “The answer to appellant’s contention as to the plea of former jeopardy is amply supplied by Code 1975, §§ 15-8-90 and 15-8-91, formerly Code 1940, Tit.”
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.