was defective for failing to set out an overt act, as required for the crime of attempt. Joshua, 445 So.2d at 222-23. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied primarily upon the case of Bucklew v. State, 206 So.2d 200 (Miss.1968), holding that “[o]ur statutory law requires proof of an overt act in order to sustain a conviction of an attempt to commit a crime.” Joshua, 445 So.2d at 222 (citing Bucklew, 206 So.2d at 202). ¶ 15. Initially, the Joshua Court correctly recited the holding of Bucklew. Joshua, 445 So.2d at 222. At this point, however, the Joshua Court apparently conflated the Bucklew decision with the general requirement that “an accused person has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and material elements of the accusation filed against him.” Id. (<HOLDING>). In so doing, the Joshua decision read far
holding that the indictment for aggravated assault was substantially defective in that it did not set out any alleged overt act whatsoever regarding appellants attempt to cause bodily harm to the patrolman holding that aggravated assault was not a lesser included offense in prosecution for armed burglary attempted robbery and use of a firearm in the com mission of a felony because the allegation in the information that the accused carried a firearm was insufficient to charge the elements of aggravated assault holding that despite the inclusion of negligencebased counts because sexual assault was the only act alleged in the writ as a cause of bodily injury the injuries alleged had to be viewed as repercussions of the assault holding that we will not grant relief unless the indictment is so obviously defective as not to charge the offense alleged by any reasonable construction holding that an information charging defendant with offense of burglary that alleged that the defendant had committed an assault was not defective for failing to further allege specific facts that constituted assault