Our precedent establishes that "surplusage" in an indictment may be removed without prejudice to the defendant. See, e.g., Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 279-80 (Miss. 2005); Schloder v. State, 310 So.2d 721, 723-24 (Miss. 1975); Sullivan v. Cook, 218 So.2d 879, 880-31 (Miss.

The indictment must provide the accused with a “concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged.” Mixon v. State , 921 So.2d 275, 280 (¶ 13) (Miss.2005) (quoting King v. State , 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss.1991) ); accord URCCC 7.06. The trial court may permit the indictment to be amended, but “[s]uch amendments ... may pertain to matters of form only, not matters of substance.”

¶ 11. An indictment is required to contain a "concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged." Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 280 (Miss.2005) (quoting King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss.1991) ; Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 804 (Miss.

Graves was indicted for two counts of fondling pursuant to Section 97-5-23(1) of the Mississippi Code and two counts of sexual battery, one of which was later nolle prossed, pursuant to Section 97-3-95(1)(d). ¶11. An indictment is required to contain a "concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged." Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 280 (Miss. 2005) (quoting King v. State, 580 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Miss. 1991); Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 798, 804 (Miss.

Even assuming that the State was improperly permitted to introduce hearsay testimony, a party cannot “open the door” to hearsay. Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 278 (Miss.2005) (citing Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 25.

Even assuming that the State was improperly permitted to introduce hearsay testimony, a party cannot "open the door" to hearsay. Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 278 (Miss. 2005) (citing Murphy v. State,453 So. 2d 1290, 1294 (Miss. 1984)).

This Court recently dealt with a bolstering argument based on our holding in Ratcliff which said that statements of an informant to investigators were inadmissible hearsay. See Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 278-79 (Miss. 2005). The Court distinguished these two cases, however, stating the linchpin of the Ratcliff decision was that "an accused person is entitled to be confronted with and have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him" and Ratcliff was not given that opportunity.

However, because both Ellington and Fisher testified at trial that Forrest made substantially similar statements, any error by the admission of the same statements through Chambers was harmless. See also Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 278-79 (¶¶9-11) (Miss. 2005) (finding a defendant’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced where declarant in a double hearsay scenario testified and was available for cross-examination).B. Relevance

"Essentially, nothing more than a concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged is required." Mixon v. State , 921 So. 2d 275, 280 (¶13) (Miss. 2005) (quotation marks omitted); accord MRCrP 14.1(a)(1) ("The indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts and elements constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation."). ¶72.

¶ 8. We have previously stated that “[a]mendments to indictments should only be granted by a court during trial if the amendment pertains to a matter of form and not substance.” Graham v. State, 935 So.2d 1119, 1121 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 280 (¶ 15) (Miss.2005)). “[A] change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case.”