context: . In assault cases, the Court and the Court of Appeals have held that indictments were not defective even where words from both the simple and aggravated assault subsections were used.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 910 So.2d 1174, 1179
citation_a.parenthetical: indictment that used "phraseology from both subsections" was not defective
citation_a.sentence: See also Johnson v. State, 910 So.2d 1174, 1179 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (indictment that used “phraseology from both subsections” was not defective).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 337 So.2d 1274, 1276
citation_b.parenthetical: it was clear that defendant was charged only with simple assault, even though indictment included language from both simple and aggravated assault subsections
citation_b.sentence: See Anthony v. State, 349 So.2d 1066, 1067 (Miss.1977) (defendant need only compare the indictment with the statute to know he was charged with aggravated assault rather than simple assault); Toliver v. State, 337 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss.1976) (it was clear that defendant was charged only with simple assault, even though indictment included language from both simple and aggravated assault subsections).