In State v. Fairbanks, 172 Ohio App.3d 766, 2007 Ohio 4117, 876 N.E.2d 1293, the indictment provided a caption stating the crime charged, the statutory subsection, and the felony degree. Below and separate from the caption was the text or body of the indictment setting forth the date of the crime, the defendant's alleged prohibited conduct, and the elements of the crime charged. The caption and body of that indictment were set forth in the instrument with nothing indicating the crime alleged in the caption was specifically connected to the alleged prohibited conduct in the body. As a result, the Twelfth District determined the state's attempt to amend the indictment changed the identity of the crime. That is, because the caption and body were fundamentally disconnected and the indictment did not include the level of the offense or specific statutory subsection in the body, adding an essential element to the body of the indictment functioned to facially alter the level of the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. In State v. Fairbanks, 172 Ohio App. 3d 766, 2007 Ohio 4117, at P5, 876 N.E.2d 1293, the appellant was charged with two counts of intimidation. The caption of the indictment specified that the charges were third-degree felonies brought pursuant to R.C. 2921.04(B), which prohibits attempting to intimidate a witness through "force or unlawful threat of harm to any person or property." Id. at P5, 7. However, the body of the indictment simply referred to R.C. 2921.04. Id. at P6. On the day of trial, before opening statements, the state moved to amend the indictment by adding the appropriate "force or threat of harm" language; and, the trial court granted the motion on the basis that the appellant knew, through discovery, that force or threats were at issue. Id. at P9. The appellant's objection was noted for the record, but not made part of it. Id. The appellant was convicted on each count of intimidation. Id. at P10. On appeal, the appellant assigned as error the trial court's granting of the amendment to the indictment. The Twelfth District found the assignment well-taken. Id. at P23. It stated: "We are aware that the caption or heading of the indictment listed the felony subsection and indicated that the charge was a felony of the third degree. However, the text or body of the indictment did not list the level of the offense or the specific statutory subsection, and most importantly, contained no 'force or unlawful threat of harm' element to constitute the felony charge." Id. at P24.