or character of the offense charged. Thus, he argues, the Commonwealth had to obtain an indictment for the amended charge before he could be tried on that charge. We disagree. “The purpose of an indictment ‘is to give an accused notice of the nature and character of the accusations against him in order that he can adequately prepare to defend against his accuser.’ ” Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 103, 109, 603 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2004) (quoting King v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 193, 198, 578 S.E.2d 803, 806 (2003)). Where there is a “variance between the allegations [in the indictment] and the evidence offered in proof thereof,” the trial court may amend the indictmen ature or character of the offense charged, it was impermissible. See Powell, 261 Va. at 534-35, 552 S.E.2d at 356-57 (<HOLDING>). Here, the indictment returned by the grand
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 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 the insertion of surplus words in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense charged holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense 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