☢ test - Í

Fletcher v. State, 326 Ga.App. 389, 756 S.E.2d 625 (March 20, 2014). Convictions for robbery by intimidation and related offenses affirmed; trial court properly denied motion for directed verdict as to aggravated assault charge. Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was no “fatal variance between the indictment, which charged that he used his hands to choke the victim, and the proof, which showed that he used his arms to choke her.” Jones v. State, 320 Ga.App. 681, 740 S.E.2d 655 (March 22, 2013). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no fatal variance between allegation of armed robbery committed “by use of a handgun” and evidence that defendant used a pellet gun. “As the manner in which the weapon would be used would be the same for either gun, and as both can produce similar injuries, no fatal variance exists.” Watson v. State, 289 Ga. 39, 709 S.E.2d 2 (March 25, 2011). Convictions for felony murder and related offenses affirmed; no error where trial court denied general and special demurrers to indictment on grounds that count charging possession of knife during commission of felony didn’t allege that the knife had a blade of at least three inches. “‘Pretermitting the propriety of the trial court’s rulings, [Watson] cannot show how any insufficiency in the indictment prejudiced [him] so as to require reversal. The record establishes that [Watson] had notice of what [he was] charged with, so that [he] was able to intelligently prepare his defense and be safeguarded against double jeopardy. [Nor has Watson] shown how he was misled to his prejudice by any alleged imperfection in the indictment and we can discern no prejudice in [the] record.’ Mitchell v. State , 282 Ga. 416, 419 (4) (651 S.E.2d 49) (2007). See also State v. Eubanks , 239 Ga. 483 (238 S.E.2d 38) (1977) (matters raised by general or special demurrer subject to harmless error analysis). Indeed, the record reveals that the jury was able to physically examine at trial the knife used in the murder in order to determine that the blade involved was more than three inches in length, and Watson therefore could not have been convicted of possession of a knife during the commission of a felony without all of the essential elements of the crime being proven. See Mitchell v. State , 283 Ga. 341 (1) (659 S.E.2d 356) (2008) (because knife used in murder was introduced into evidence, jury was authorized to use its senses to determine if the knife blade was of the requisite length, and evidence was therefore sufficient to sustain conviction for possession of a knife during the commission of a crime even though no witnesses testified as to length of knife used). Moreover, the knife was available for Watson himself to examine during discovery, and Watson was able to intelligently prepare his defense based on the charge as alleged in the indictment. Accordingly, ‘[a]ny error in failing to try [Watson] upon a “perfect” indictment was ... manifestly harmless.’ (Citation omitted.) Mitchell, supra , 282 Ga. at 419 (4).” In re: J.H.M., 295 Ga.App. 483, 672 S.E.2d 411 (December 5, 2008). No fatal variance where delinquency petition alleged that juvenile struck victim with beer bottle, but evidence showed that juvenile used fist while co- perpetrator used beer bottle. “[T]he evidence presented … did not create a surprise for or mislead the defense in a way that resulted in prejudice to the defendant. [Cit.] Ignoring the beer bottle language and focusing instead on the ‘hitting’ portion of the allegations, the petition adequately informed J.H.M. that he was being charged with assaulting the victim by ‘hitting [the victim] in the head,’ and the evidence that J.H.M. struck the victim with his fist was enough to sustain his conviction of aggravated assault. [Cit.] Therefore, the beer bottle detail incorporated into the petition is ‘an unnecessary specification of a legally unnecessary fact.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Quiroz v. State, 291 Ga.App. 423, 426(1) (662 S.E.2d 235) (2008).” In re: J.A.C., 291 Ga.App. 728, 662 S.E.2d 811 (May 30, 2008). No fatal variance between delinquency petition’s allegation that juvenile committed aggravated assault by ‘hitting’ deputy with baton and evidence “that he merely advanced on [deputy] immediately before a hand-to-hand struggle over the baton.” Hester v. State, 293 Ga. 367, 659 S.E.2d 600 (March 31, 2008). Indictment charging aggravated assault with a lamp was not defective for “failure to specify how the lamp was used.” “Citing Smith v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54 (464 S.E.2d 198) (1995), [Defendant] argues that, because a lamp is not a deadly weapon per se, its specific use in an assault is not readily apparent and, thus, must be specifically alleged. However, Hardrick does not support this argument. ‘[T]he proper reading of [ Hardrick ] is “that an indictment charging aggravated assault is fundamentally flawed when the essential elements of aggravation and intent to assault are not contained therein.” [Cit.]’ Pye v. State, 274 Ga. 839, 841(4) (561 S.E.2d 109) (2002). Thus, because the indictment alleged that the lamp is ‘an object which when used offensively against a person, is likely to and actually does result in serious bodily injury,’ an allegation that it is a deadly weapon was not required. State v. English, 276 Ga. 343, 345(1) (578 S.E.2d 413) (2003); Pye v. State, supra. An indictment alleging an assault by use of an instrument which is not a deadly weapon per se is not required to be more specific regarding its use than indictments charging assault with an instrument which is a deadly weapon per se, as even the latter type of weapon,