Opinion ID: 1658853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the lower court err in refusing the appellant's motion for a directed verdict based on the amendment of the indictment?

Text: The indictment read that Ora Lee Baker was an agent of Ella Jean Winters d/b/a Winters' Grocery. In testimony before the court it was established that Ora Lee Baker was actually a part owner, not just an agent and employee of Winters' Grocery. That error was corrected by the court on a motion to amend by the state after the state had rested its case. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-13 (1972) provides: Whenever, on the trial of an indictment for any offense, there shall appear to be any variance between the statement in the indictment and the evidence offered in proof thereof, in the ... ownership of any property named or described therein, or in the description of any property or thing, it shall and may be lawful for the court before which the trial shall be had, if it shall consider such variance not material to the merits of the case, and that the defendant cannot be prejudiced thereby in his defense on the merits, to order such indictment and the record and proceedings in the court to be amended according to the proof ... (Emphasis added). In the instant case no prejudice was shown. The amendment was one of form, not of substance. Overruling the motion for a directed verdict was proper.