Opinion ID: 1932370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the court err in allowing the appellant to be convicted of a crime alleged to have been committed on january 17, 1986?

Text: The appellant was indicted for the crime of sexual battery by a grand jury. The indictment alleged that the appellant committed sexual battery on Jacqueline Broadnax (Jackie) on or about January 17, 1986. (Emphasis added). The State was allowed to introduce testimony that an incident of sexual battery took place on January 21, 1986. The date of January 17, 1986 was important in this trial as this was the date on which Coretta Ezell moved into her new apartment and Spider Daniel kept Jackie for Coretta while she moved. January 21, 1986 was a relevant date because Jackie Broadnax remembered that Spider Daniel kept her on that date because that was the date Cynthia Tucker was hospitalized giving birth to a child. These two incidents, moving and Cynthia's hospitalization, were dates that Jackie could recall. Most of the evidence presented at trial did revolve around January 21, 1986 and an incident of sexual battery which occurred on that date. At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief and after the State rested, the defense made a motion for a directed verdict on grounds that the State's proof did not conform to the indictment since the only evidence put on by the State regarding the crime of sexual battery did not prove that it occurred on January 17, 1986. The motion was overruled. The issue before this Court in regards to this assignment of error is whether the language on or about January 17, 1986 is sufficient. Rule 2.05, Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice is controlling. Rule 2.05 sets forth seven requirements which an indictment must include. Rule 2.05(5) states: The date and if applicable the time, on which the offense was alleged to be committed. Failure to state the correct date shall not render the indictment insufficient. (Emphasis added) If an indictment reasonably provides the accused actual notice of the nature of the charge against him and includes the seven specific enumerated items it is sufficient. Armstead v. State, 503 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1987). The indictment satisfies Rule 2.05(5) by virtue of its language on or about January 17, 1986. This date is specific enough to put defendant on notice of the charge against him and the approximate date the crime took place. Regardless, the failure to state the correct date does not render the indictment invalid pursuant to Rule 2.05(5). This assignment of error is without merit. Finding no error we affirm. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., concurs in result only.