With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 272 Va. 334, 346, 634 S.E.2d 697, 702 (2006); see Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 157 Va. 867, 877, 161 S.E. 297, 300 (1931) (“The manifest purpose of [the statutory predecessor to Code § 19.2-231] is to allow amendments which avoid unnecessary delays and further the ends of justice, without prejudice to the substantial right of the accused to be informed of the accusation, and to one fair trial on the merits.”). Accordingly, to resolve the question whether the trial court erred in amending the indictment to allege a greater amount of a mixture containing cocaine base, we must determine whether that amendment changed the nature or character of the offense charged. If it did not, it was a permissible amendment under Code § 19.2-231. See Sullivan, 157 Va. at 876-78, 161 S.E. at 299-300 (<HOLDING>); cf. Rawls, 272 Va. at 346, 349, 634 S.E.2d at

A: 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
B: holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
C: holding that the insertion of surplus words in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense charged
D: 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
D.