State v. Ingram

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that his motion for dismissal should have been granted since there was a variance between the allegations in the indictment and the State’s evidence at trial. The indictment upon which defendant was tried specified “[t]hat Curtis Moses Ingram . . . did unlawfully, willfully and feloni-ously distribute a controlled substance to Clarence Gooche . . . [and that] the defendant distributed the said substance by selling and transferring the same to Clarence Gooche for the price of approximately $300.00 . . . . ” The State’s evidence tends to prove that defendant…