than in the precise and legalistic language usually found in an indictment, a presentment or an arrest warrant.” Carratt v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 55, 59, 205 S.E.2d 653, 656 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 973 (1975). The purpose of this requirement ‘ ‘is to apprise the subject of the search of the offense being investigated and the evidence sought, and to advise the officers in advance as to what they are to be searching for.” Id. at 60, 205 S.E.2d at 656. Here, the affidavit specifically describes the offenses being investigated as breaking and entering, grand larceny, and possession of stolen property. This language “substantially” alleges, in general terms, the offenses that are the basis of the search. Compare Moore v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 569, 570, 179 S.E.2d 458, 459-60 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the affidavit describes the
holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony holding that a felony drug offense is an offense punishable by more than one year as defined in 21 usc  80244 2000 regardless of whether the state of conviction classified the particular offense as a misdemeanor or felony holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense