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
citation_a.identifier: 349 So.2d 1066, 1067
citation_a.parenthetical: defendant need only compare the indictment with the statute to know he was charged with aggravated assault rather than simple assault
citation_a.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).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 910 So.2d 1174, 1179
citation_b.parenthetical: indictment that used "phraseology from both subsections" was not defective
citation_b.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).