accused in preparing defense in Virginia

2008“Error in the citation of the statute . . . that defines the offense or prescribes the punishments therefor, or omission of the citation, shall not be grounds . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error or omission prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” Rule 3A:6(a); see also Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 713 , 324 S.E.2d 682, 686 (1985).

2008“Error in the citation of the statute . . . that defines the offense or prescribes the punishments therefor, or omission of the citation, shall not be grounds . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error or omission prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” Rule 3A:6(a); see also Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 713 , 324 S.E.2d 682, 686 (1985).

2010Pursuant to Code § 19.2-231, the trial court may permit an amendment to the indictment if the amendment “does not change the nature or character of the offense charged” in the indictment. 6 Furthermore, Rule 3A:6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that an “[e]rror in the citation of the statute or ordinance that defines the offense . . . shall not be ground . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error . . . prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” See George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 280-81 , 411 S.E.2d 12, 22 (1991); Bottenfield v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. A

2010Pursuant to Code § 19.2-231, the trial court may permit an amendment to the indictment if the amendment “does not change the nature or character of the offense charged” in the indictment. 6 Furthermore, Rule 3A:6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that an “[e]rror in the citation of the statute or ordinance that defines the offense . . . shall not be ground . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error . . . prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” See George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 280-81 , 411 S.E.2d 12, 22 (1991); Bottenfield v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. A

2019“When construing a statute, our primary objective is ‘to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent,’ as expressed by the language used in the statute.” Cabral v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 67, 71 (2018) (quoting Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va. 420 , 425 (2012)).

2019In keeping with this purpose, “[e]rror[s] in the citation of the statute . . . that defines the offense . . . or omission of the citation, shall not be grounds for . . . reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error or omission prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” Rule 3A:6(a); see also Code § 19.2-226(10) (providing that no indictment shall be deemed invalid “[f]or omitting or stating incorrectly the . . . [C]ode references for the particular offense or offenses covered”). “[T]o the extent the appellant’s assignment of error requires ‘statutory interpretation, i

2010Pursuant to Code § 19.2-231, the trial court may permit an amendment to the indictment if the amendment “does not change the nature or character of the offense charged” in the indictment. 6 Furthermore, Rule 3A:6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that an “[e]rror in the citation of the statute or ordinance that defines the offense . . . shall not be ground . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error . . . prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” See George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 280-81 , 411 S.E.2d 12, 22 (1991); Bottenfield v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. A

2010Pursuant to Code § 19.2-231, the trial court may permit an amendment to the indictment if the amendment “does not change the nature or character of the offense charged” in the indictment. 6 Furthermore, Rule 3A:6(a) provides, in pertinent part, that an “[e]rror in the citation of the statute or ordinance that defines the offense . . . shall not be ground . . . for reversal of a conviction, unless the court finds that the error . . . prejudiced the accused in preparing his defense.” See George v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 264, 280-81 , 411 S.E.2d 12, 22 (1991); Bottenfield v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. A

2003See also Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 148 , 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976) (holding that "the references at the foot of the [indictment] to the . . . statutes . . . support, but do not replace the 'definite written statement' . . . required in the body of an indictment").

2003See also Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 148 , 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976) (holding that "the references at the foot of the [indictment] to the . . . statutes . . . support, but do not replace the 'definite written statement' . . . required in the body of an indictment").

2001Additionally, an indictment lacking an element of the crime charged is not void and relief will not lie if appellant did not object to the indictment prior to the verdict if the appellant was "fully aware of the 'cause and nature' of the offense for which [he] was being tried and of which he was convicted." McDougal v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 547, 549 , 186 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1972) (citing Forester v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 764, 767 , 173 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1970)) (indictment charging statutory burglary failed to allege that entry was made in the nighttime did not void the indictment).

2001Additionally, an indictment lacking an element of the crime charged is not void and relief will not lie if appellant did not object to the indictment prior to the verdict if the appellant was "fully aware of the 'cause and nature' of the offense for which [he] was being tried and of which he was convicted." McDougal v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 547, 549 , 186 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1972) (citing Forester v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 764, 767 , 173 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1970)) (indictment charging statutory burglary failed to allege that entry was made in the nighttime did not void the indictment).

2001Additionally, an indictment lacking an element of the crime charged is not void and relief will not lie if appellant did not object to the indictment prior to the verdict if the appellant was "fully aware of the 'cause and nature' of the offense for which [he] was being tried and of which he was convicted." McDougal v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 547, 549 , 186 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1972) (citing Forester v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 764, 767 , 173 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1970)) (indictment charging statutory burglary failed to allege that entry was made in the nighttime did not void the indictment).

2001Additionally, an indictment lacking an element of the crime charged is not void and relief will not lie if appellant did not object to the indictment prior to the verdict if the appellant was "fully aware of the 'cause and nature' of the offense for which [he] was being tried and of which he was convicted." McDougal v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 547, 549 , 186 S.E.2d 18, 20 (1972) (citing Forester v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 764, 767 , 173 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1970)) (indictment charging statutory burglary failed to allege that entry was made in the nighttime did not void the indictment).