of vitiating the original information as fully as though it had been formally dismissed by order of court.” Id. at 694. Here, the State amended the information for the sole purpose of adding Howard’s alias. The next two issues raised involve the trial court’s instructions to the jury. First, Howard contends the trial court committed fundamental error in providing the jury with incorrect written instructions regarding the elements of burglary because the instructions stated that the jury must find the defendant entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a burglary. The instructions given below are not materially distinguishable from those which we have previously upheld, and thus, this is not a point of reversible error. Freeman v. State, 787 So.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Another jury instruction issue raised is
holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that the use of the written form is mandatory and that failure to use the written form as mandated is reversible error holding that written instructions did not cure erroneous oral instruction holding that the erroneous use of the term burglary in the beginning of the written jury instructions was not fundamental because any error was cured by the correct use of the term theft in the latter portion of the written instructions holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable