7(e). Such would necessarily aid the accused in determining the allegations set forth by providing him with additional information not contained within the indictment or information. Moreover, federal law, once again unlike State law, mandates that the accused be afforded the discovery of certain evidence prior to trial. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16. (If Moreno, in the case before us, had been in federal court and had couched his "Motion to Quash” in terms of a discovery motion, Rule 16 would have mandated that the State provide "any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant.”) However, we can think of no reason why differences in discovery practices would or should justify jurisdictional differences. See United States v. Conlon, 628 F.2d 150, 156 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, although Texas law does not
holding that we will not grant relief unless the indictment is so obviously defective as not to charge the offense alleged by any reasonable construction holding that multiple conspiracies instruction is required where there is possibility of prejudicial variance between indictment and trial proof and noting that such an instruction is designed precisely to cure the problem of kotteakos spillover  and would not cure other prejudicial variance problems holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that a bill of particulars cannot cure a defective indictment holding that the recital of an erroneous legal characterization of facts did not render an indictment defective