indictment will prejudice defense in Mississippi

2005"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Id. (citing Griffin v. State, 584 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 23.

2002Therefore, “the test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Greenlee, 725 So.2d at 822 (citing Griffin v. State, 584 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss.1991)).

2021The supreme court has stated that “[t]he test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense 4 The State asserts that Stone raises for the first time on appeal the argument that the timing of the amendment deprived him of the opportunity “to investigate and prepare any alibi defense he might otherwise have had.” However, our review of the transcript shows that although Stone objected and stated that “[a] key element of our defense is that the totality of the facts in this case are unreliable,” he also asserted that “[a]mendment may be allowed only if the defense is affor

2021As stated, “[t]he test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Eakes, 665 So. 2d at 859-60 .

2002Therefore, “the test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Greenlee, 725 So.2d at 822 (citing Griffin v. State, 584 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss.1991)).

2000“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Greenlee v. State, 725 So.2d 816 (¶ 10) (Miss.1998).

2000"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Id.; (See also, Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss. 1987)).

1998"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Id.; (See also, Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss.1987).

2025“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Jones, 912 So. 2d at 976 (¶9) (quoting Pool v. State, 764 So. 2d 440, 443 (¶10) (Miss. 2000)).

2024“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pool, 764 So. 2d at 443 ). ¶46.

2025“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made.” Jones, 912 So. 2d at 976 (¶9) (quoting Pool v. State, 764 So. 2d 440, 443 (¶10) (Miss. 2000)).

2008"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Id.

2024“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood will be equally available after the amendment is made.” Id. (quoting Patton, 109 So. 3d at 81 (¶44)). ¶24.

2024“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood will be equally available after the amendment is made.” Id. (quoting Patton, 109 So. 3d at 81 (¶44)). ¶24.

2025“Unless time is an essential element or factor in the crime . . . an amendment to change the date on which the offense occurred is one of form only.” Baine v. State, 604 So. 2d 258, 261 (Miss. 1992). ¶24.

2008Jones v. State, 912 So.2d 973, 976 (¶ 9) (Miss.2005). ¶ 50. "[U]nless time is an essential element or factor in the crime, an amendment to change the date on which the offense occurred is one of form only." Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 781 (¶ 16) (Miss.2001) (quoting Baine v. State, 604 So.2d 258, 260 (Miss.1992)).

2019“The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be 2 Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 14.1(b)(2) states that the State shall “after indictment, and at least thirty (30) days before trial or entry of a plea of guilty, file with the court formal notice of such prior conviction(s).” 8 equally available after the amendment is made.” Shumaker v. State, 956 So. 2d 1078, 1087 (¶25) (Miss.

2008"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Shumaker, 956 So.2d at 1087 (¶ 25).

2005"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Id. (citing Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1219 (¶ 17) (Miss.2000)).

2004"The test for whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense is whether the defense as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made." Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1219 (¶ 17) (Miss.2000) (citing Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 860 (Miss.1995)).

2015In order to determine whether an amendment to the indictment will prejudice the defense, the test is “whether the initial defense will remain available after the amendment.” Lawson v. State, 154 So.3d 926, 932 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.

2013“Defects on the face of an indictment must be presented by ... demurrer.” Gray, 728 So.2d at 70 (¶ 169) (citing Brandau v. State, 662 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Miss.1995)).

2013“Defects on the face of an indictment must be presented by ... demurrer.” Gray, 728 So.2d at 70 (¶ 169) (citing Brandau v. State, 662 So.2d 1051, 1054 (Miss.1995)).

2012The amendments to Malcolm’s indictment are akin to those that were at issue in Smith v. State.15 Like Malcolm, Smith was indicted under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-95(1) for sexual battery.16 Smith was indicted for three counts of sexual battery, and each count stated that “at the time of the said offense, . . . the victim was under the age of 16 years, having a date of birth of November 11, 1992.” 17 At trial, the State moved to amend the indictment to have each count state that, at the time of the alleged crime, the victim was “under the age of 14 years, having a date of birth of November

2008Jones v. State, 912 So.2d 973, 976 (¶ 9) (Miss.2005). ¶ 50. "[U]nless time is an essential element or factor in the crime, an amendment to change the date on which the offense occurred is one of form only." Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 781 (¶ 16) (Miss.2001) (quoting Baine v. State, 604 So.2d 258, 260 (Miss.1992)).