found no Alabama cases directly on point with respect to this issue, we have found three cases from other jurisdictions with similar situations. In all three of those cases, the omission of the accused’s name from the body of the charging instrument was found not to be fatal. See State v. Nixon, 977 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997) (noting that the defendants had waived their challenge to the indictment because ‘[t]he omission of the defendants’ names in the body of the indictment neither relates to subject matter jurisdiction nor failure to allege an offense,’ but nevertheless holding that ‘[sjince the defendants were named on the cover sheet ... it is clear that they were the persons referred to in the body of the indictment’); State v. Geary, 884 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); and Hill v. State, 523 P.2d 1114, 1116
holding that evidence of the same name the fact that the previous conviction occurred in precinct of defendants residence and that although the defendant testified he did not deny that he was the person described in the record of the previous conviction was sufficient to establish identity 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 the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment holding that failure of indictment to include the defendants name was not fatal because the original complaint that initiated the prosecution properly listed the defendants name and the record indieated that the defendant  knew what he was charged with and what facts the charge was based upon