in question was a “Fuelmart,” whereas the indictment alleged that the burglary took place at a “Fuel Man.” We note first that, while Cridiso raised several grounds on which he believed that the indictment should be quashed, Cridiso did not raise this issue below as a flaw in the indictment. A flaw in an indictment that could have been cured with a non-substantive amendment that is raised for the first time on appeal is procedurally barred. Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 70 (¶ 169) (Miss.1998) (citing Brandau v. State, 662 So.2d 1051, 1055 (Miss.1995)). The change of the specific name of the store from “Fuelman” to “Fuelmart” clearly would have been an amendment to the form of the indictment, and thus would have been proper. See Parchman v. State, 279 So.2d 602, 603-04 (Miss.1973) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this issue is procedurally barred.
holding that first amendment precluded damages action brought by rape victim against newspaper for publishing victims name when name was obtained from publicly released police report 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 amendment to indictment to reflect actual name of victim is allowable holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense