I guess I am not understanding how Prior was hindered in defending his client when the state presented the evidence for the correct date. He cross examined every witness on the info presented with the correct dates/times. The only thing that is not correct is a date on a paper.We shall see very shortly, but my guess is the same as yours.
Prior can legitimately claim they have been defending testimony against the wording of the indictment, and now the state - having already rested its case - wants to change that charge to something else. That's not fair to the defendant and his rights, and I see no way the state gets to say "Never mind, let's have a do over."
This would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of count 4 (JJ murder) but does not impact the other charges.
The case was presented as if the date on the indictment was correct and neither side knew it was incorrect. So all evidence was presented as if the indictment had the correct date on it. He wasn't hindered in any way because all evidence presented was factually about the exact date JJ was killed and he cross examined every witness with that same data about the correct date.
I think if the indictment was wrong AND the evidence was presented with the wrong dates then I could see there being a big problem. It isn't like the state has decided JJ died a different day after they presented their case. I also just don't see how a date being printed wrong is reason to throw out the entire charge.