Opinion ID: 1093217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in permitting the state to amend the indictment by altering on the face thereof the date of the offense from the 16th day of september, 1985, to the 11th day of september, 1985?

Text: After a jury was selected and empaneled and was retired from the courtroom, the State moved the court to amend the indictment to change the date of the alleged sale of cocaine to the 11th day of September, 1985, rather than the 16th day of September, 1985, which appeared on the face of the indictment. Doby objected by stating that the defendant had notified the State of his defense of alibi prior to trial and that his witnesses would account for his whereabouts on the date of the original indictment. The defense claimed prejudice to change the alleged sale to another date by five days. To support the foregoing argument, counsel for Doby cites § 99-7-21 Miss. Code Ann. 1972. This code section reads as follows: All objections to an indictment for a defect appearing on the face thereof, shall be taken by demurrer to the indictment, and not otherwise, before the issuance of the venire facias in capital cases, and before the jury shall be impaneled in all other cases, and not afterward. The court for any formal defect, may, if it be thought necessary, cause the indictment to be forthwith amended, and thereupon the trial shall proceed as if such defect had not appeared. The defendant urges that penal statutes are interpreted strictly against the State and are construed liberally in favor of the accused. See McLamb v. State, 456 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). In Byrd v. State, 228 So.2d 874, 875-6 (Miss. 1969), this Court opined in interpreting the above code section the following standard: The test of whether an accused is prejudiced by the amendment of an indictment or information has been said to be whether or not a defense under the indictment or information as it originally stood would be equally available after the amendment is made and whether or not any evidence accused might have would be equally applicable to the indictment or information in the one form as in the other; if the answer is in the affirmative, the amendment is one of form and not of substance. In Deaton v. State, 242 So.2d 452, 453 (Miss. 1970), this Court wrote: Time may or may not be of the essence of an offense when an alibi defense is presented, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case... . In the instant proceedings the record reflects that appellant was not surprised or prejudiced by testimony that the offense occurred on August 16, rather than the date charged in the indictment. Appellant offered testimony of an alibi for both dates. Obviously, Doby provides a viable defense for a sale committed on September 11th as well as a sale committed on September 16th. The same defense and supporting witnesses were available for both dates. Therefore, this Court holds that the trial court was not in error in allowing the change in the indictment under the facts of this case.