states that “[t]he court may at any time prior to an adjudication on the merits cause the pleadings to be amended to cure errors, defects, omissions, imperfections or variances if substantial rights of the respondent are not prejudiced.” Id. (emphasis added). The State’s argument is inapposite to the present situation for two reasons. First, subsection F addresses minor technical amendments to a petition, not major substantive amendments like the addition of different criminal charges. The committee commentary on this subsection states that it is patterned after Rule 5-204 NMRA 2002 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts. Under Rule 5-204(C), amendments to correct mistakes have been granted in adult cases to correct the date of t 1152, 1156-57 (Ct.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). Such changes result in an amended charging
holding that rules of criminal procedure prohibited the state from amending the indictment at the close of the trial to include additional methods of csp because such amendment substantially prejudiced defendant holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code  192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment holding that states amendment of the charging information at the close of states case in chief was permissible because amending the date of the charged crimes did not affect browns defense holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge recognizing that in adopting rules which are substantially similar to the federal rules of criminal procedure this court has traditionally given great weight to relevant precedent from federal courts particularly the supreme court of the united states