“at any time before the jury returns a verdict or the court finds the accused guilty or not guilty, provided the amendment does not change the nature or character of the offense charged.” Code § 19.2-231 (emphasis added). Code § 19.2-231 “is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed in order to achieve the laudable purpose of avoiding further unnecessary delay in the criminal justice process by allowing amendment, rather than requiring reindictment by a grand jury.” Powell, 261 Va. at 533, 552 S.E.2d at 356. Nevertheless, “[t]he limitation on amendment to indictments in Code § 19.2-231 to amendments that do not change the nature or character of the offense is clearly intended to protect the defendant from being deprived of notice of the offense charged.” Rawls v. Comm 03, 704 (<HOLDING>). And, conversely, if the amendment changed the
holding that the nature or character test set forth in code  192231 applies to both indictments and warrants and that since the amendment at issue in the case did not change the nature or character of the offense charged  the trial court did not err in allowing the trial to proceed on the amended warrant holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue 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 amendment made to the indictment in this case was not authorized by code  192231 because the amended indictment materially changed the nature of the offense originally charged holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them