Opinion ID: 1630410
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The State failed to prove the necessary elements pursuant to the subsection cited in the indictment, and the amendment to the indictment was error.

Text: ¶ 19. In the indictment, Rigby was charged twice under Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-30 and once under § 63-11-30(3), the latter being the code section known as the Zero Tolerance for Minors section. Rigby asserts that the State failed to prove the necessary elements pursuant to § 63-11-30(3) and that therefore, a dismissal should have been granted. This sub-issue is also without merit. ¶ 20. The trial court instructed the State during the course of the trial that if it intended to cite a subsection, the proper subsection would be § 63-11-30(1)(a). Agreeing with the trial court, the State subsequently amended its indictment to so reflect. We find that the trial court was correct and, therefore, affirm the trial court. Mere error in writing the statute incorrectly on the indictment is an error of form as opposed to substance, and therefore, the amendment to the indictment is not fatal. Terry v. State 755 So.2d 41, 43-44 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). In Terry, the heading of the indictment stated, burglary of a dwelling, and the heading of Rigby's indictment stated, Felony DUI/ DUI, with, MCA § 63-11-30, stated underneath it. Terry is not distinguishable from the present case, because it is clear that Rigby had notice of the charges brought against him. See also Miller v. State, 740 So.2d 858, 862 (Miss.1999). ¶ 21. Rigby was thirty-two-years-old at the time of his the indictment, and this alone should have provided notice to him that he was not being charged under the Zero Tolerance for Minors subsection, but for felony DUI, as is stated at the top of the indictment. We find no merit in this allegation of error and affirm the trial court.