relatively broad standard in Mississippi

2020“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this [C]ourt.” Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647, 652 (Miss. 1996), superseded on other grounds by statute as discussed in Caston v. State, 949 So. 2d 852, 856 (Miss.

2009“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.” Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 781 (Miss. 2001) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647, 652 (Miss. 1996)).

2014In Montgomery v. State, 891 So.2d 179, 185 (¶ 22) (Miss.2004), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that “[t]he question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by th[e] Court.” (Quoting Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873, 874 (¶ 3) (Miss.2000)).

2012“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873, 874 (¶ 3) (Miss.2000) (citation omitted).

2024“The question of whether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review, by the [appellate] court.” Tapper v. State, 47 So. 3d 95, 100 (¶17) (Miss. 2010). ¶32.

2024“The question of whether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review, by this Court.” Tapper v. State, 47 So. 3d 95, 100 (Miss. 2010) (citing Montgomery v. State, 891 So. 2d 179, 185 (Miss. 2004)). ¶16.

2024“The question of whether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review, by this Court.” Tapper v. State, 47 So. 3d 95, 100 (Miss. 2010) (citing Montgomery v. State, 891 So. 2d 179, 185 (Miss. 2004)). ¶16.

2023“The question of whether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review, by this Court.” Tapper v. State, 47 So. 3d 95, 100 (Miss. 2010) (citing Montgomery v. State, 891 So. 2d 179, 185 (Miss. 2004)).

2004"The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court." Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873, 874 (Miss.2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647 (Miss.1996)). "`It is fundamental that courts may amend indictments only to correct defects of form, however, defects of *186 substance must be corrected by the grand jury.'" Evans v. State, 813 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss.2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So.2d 402, 404 (Miss.Ct.App.1999)); see URCCC 7.09.

2003“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Nguyen v. State, 761 So. 2d 873, 874 (Miss. 2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 1996)). “‘It is fundamental that courts may amend indictments only to correct defects of form, however, defects of substance must be corrected by the grand jury.’” Evans v. State, 813 So. 2d 724, 728 (Miss. 2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So. 2d 402, 404 (Miss.

2004"The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court." Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873, 874 (Miss.2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647 (Miss.1996)). "`It is fundamental that courts may amend indictments only to correct defects of form, however, defects of *186 substance must be corrected by the grand jury.'" Evans v. State, 813 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss.2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So.2d 402, 404 (Miss.Ct.App.1999)); see URCCC 7.09.

2003“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Nguyen v. State, 761 So. 2d 873, 874 (Miss. 2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 1996)). “‘It is fundamental that courts may amend indictments only to correct defects of form, however, defects of substance must be corrected by the grand jury.’” Evans v. State, 813 So. 2d 724, 728 (Miss. 2002) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 739 So. 2d 402, 404 (Miss.

2005The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this court." Hunter v. State, 878 So.2d 1066, 1069-70 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Simmons v. State, 784 So.2d 985, 987 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)).

2004The ques tion of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this court.” Simmons v. State, 784 So.2d 985, 987 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2001). ¶ 7.

2020Ct. App. 2007). “[T]his Court conducts de novo review 7 on questions of law.” Id. (citing UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 525 So. 2d 746, 754 (Miss. 1987)). ¶26.

2006Because a determination of whether an amendment is one of form or one of substance is a question of law, a court's decision to allow the amendment of an indictment "deserves a relatively broad standard of review. . . ." Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)). ¶ 9.

2022In other words, Beale argues that the indictment is defective for the failure to allege what act Beale committed in furtherance of his attempt to kill the officers. ¶13. “[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review.” Morton v. State, 246 So. 3d 895, 902 (¶13) (Miss.

2019“When issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo.” Id. “[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review.” Morton v. State, 246 So. 3d 895, 902 (¶13) (Miss.

2013A circuit court’s decision to permit the State to amend an indictment to reflect a defendant’s habitual-offender status “is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.” Jackson v. State, 943 So.2d 746, 749 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2013The trial court’s decision to allow the indictment to be amended to include Rice’s habitual-offender status “is an issue of law and ‘enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.’ ” Jackson v. State, 943 So.2d 746, 749 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted).

2022He claims that because the indictment did not allege a specific overt act committed to further the crime, this Court should reverse and render his conviction of attempted willful trespass. ¶10. “[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review . . . .” Forkner v. State, 277 So. 3d 946 , 948-49 (Miss. 2019) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Colburn v. State, 201 So. 3d 462, 469 (Miss. 2016)). ¶11.

2017Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (1) (Rev. 2014). ¶22. “[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review.” Colburn v. State, 201 So. 3d 462, 469 (Miss. 2016) (quoting State v. Hawkins, 145 So. 3d 636, 638 (Miss. 2014)) (emphasis in original).

2018"The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by an appellate court." Davis v. State , 866 So.2d 1107 , 1110 (¶ 11) (Miss.

2011“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by an appellate court.” Davis v. State, 866 So.2d 1107, 1110 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2003).

2017Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (1) (Rev. 2014). ¶22. “[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review.” Colburn v. State, 201 So. 3d 462, 469 (Miss. 2016) (quoting State v. Hawkins, 145 So. 3d 636, 638 (Miss. 2014)) (emphasis in original).

2017Specifically, Morton argues that the indictment failed to state whether he "failed" to complete or was "prevented" from completing the act of murder; thus, he argues that indictment was legally insufficient to charge him with attempted murder. ¶ 13. "[W]hether an indictment is defective is an issue of law and therefore deserves a relatively broad standard of review, or de novo review." Colburn v. State , 201 So.3d 462 , 469 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2016) (quoting State v. Hawkins , 145 So.3d 636 , 638 (¶ 3) (Miss. 2014) ). "[A]n indictment must contain (1) the essential elements of the offense charged, (

2009“Because a determination of whether an amendment is one of form or one of substance is a question of law, a court’s decision to allow the amendment of an indictment ‘deserves a relatively broad standard of review.’ ” Id.

2008"The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court." Jones v. State, 912 So.2d 973, 975 (¶ 8) (Miss.2005) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)).

2026“Whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Id. (quoting Shoemaker v. State, 256 So. 3d 604, 610 (¶21) (Miss.

2025Shoemaker, 256 So. 3d at 610 (¶21). “[W]hether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Id. (quoting Williams v. State, 169 So. 3d 932, 925 (¶7) (Miss.

2020A review of the legal 7 sufficiency of an indictment must be reviewed de novo.” Young v. State, 119 So. 3d 309, 313 (¶10) (Miss. 2013) (citations omitted).

2014“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.... [T]he legal sufficiency of an indictment must be reviewed de novo.” Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309, 313 (¶ 10) (Miss.2013) (citations omitted). ¶ 8.

2019“A circuit court’s decision to permit the State to amend an indictment to reflect a defendant’s habitual-offender 3 status is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.” Curry v. State, 131 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (¶5) (Miss.

2017“A [trial] court’s decision to permit the State to amend an indictment to reflect a defendant’s habitual-offender status is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.” Curry v. State, 131 So.3d 1232, 1234 (¶ 5) (Miss.

2009“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.” Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 781 (Miss. 2001) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647, 652 (Miss. 1996)).

2006In Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 781 (¶ 16) (Miss.2001), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the ques tion of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and enjoys a relatively broad standard of review.

2009An amendment is permissible if it “does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant’s case.” Wilson v. State, 935 So.2d 945, 948 (119) (Miss.2006) (quoting Miller v. State, 740 So.2d 858, 862 (¶ 13) (Miss.1999)).

2004We have stated: "It is well settled in this [S]tate [ ... ] that a change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case." Miller v. State, 740 So.2d 858, 862 (Miss.1999) (quoting Greenlee v. State, 725 So.2d 816, 821 (Miss.1998)) (quotations omitted). ¶ 23.

2004Hawthorne v. State, 751 So.2d 1090, 1092 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2004Hawthorne v. State, 751 So.2d 1090, 1092 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2004"Whether an indictment is fatally defective is `an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.'" Porter v. State, 749 So.2d 250, 260 (¶ 34) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)).

2002"Whether an indictment is fatally defective is `an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.'" Porter v. State, 749 So.2d 250 (¶ 34) (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2025Shoemaker, 256 So. 3d at 610 (¶21). “[W]hether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Id. (quoting Williams v. State, 169 So. 3d 932, 925 (¶7) (Miss.

2018The legal sufficiency of an indictment must be reviewed de novo." Williams v. State , 169 So.3d 932 , 935 (¶ 7) (Miss.

2013“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this court.” Id.

2009It is well settled that “[t]he question of whether an indictment is" fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by [the appellate court].” Spears v. State, 942 So.2d 772, 773 (¶ 5) (Miss.2006) (quoting Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996) (superseded by statute)).

2022Under Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1(a)(1), an indictment “shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts and elements constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation.” An indictment for an attempt crime must charge “(1) the intent to commit the offense, and (2) an overt act toward its commission.” Maxie v. State, 330 So. 2d 277, 277 (Miss. 1976) (citing Ford v. State, 218 So. 2d 731, 732 (Miss. 1969)).

2022Under Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1(a)(1), an indictment “shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts and elements constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation.” An indictment for an attempt crime must charge “(1) the intent to commit the offense, and (2) an overt act toward its commission.” Maxie v. State, 330 So. 2d 277, 277 (Miss. 1976) (citing Ford v. State, 218 So. 2d 731, 732 (Miss. 1969)).

2020“The question of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this [C]ourt.” Peterson v. State, 671 So. 2d 647, 652 (Miss. 1996), superseded on other grounds by statute as discussed in Caston v. State, 949 So. 2d 852, 856 (Miss.

2020Ct. App. 2007). “[T]his Court conducts de novo review 7 on questions of law.” Id. (citing UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 525 So. 2d 746, 754 (Miss. 1987)). ¶26.

2017“The issue of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court.” Snowden v. State, 131 So. 3d 1251, 1255 (¶11) (Miss.

2017"The issue of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court." Snowden v. State , 131 So.3d 1251 , 1255 (¶ 11) (Miss.