☢ test - Í

including guns, can be used in more than one way to commit an assault. See Arthur v. State, 275 Ga. 790, 791(2) (573 S.E.2d 44) (2002).” “The rule relied upon by [defendant] that, with certain exceptions, each count must be wholly complete within itself applies only to the essential elements of the crime, and not to the form of the indictment or to factual details alleged therein. State v. Jones, 274 Ga. 287, 288-289(1) (553 S.E.2d 612) (2001); Smith v. Hardrick, supra at 54(1). The indictment must be read as a whole. State v. Jones, [274 Ga. 287, 289(1) (553 S.E.2d 612) (2001)].” Accompanying felony murder count gave more specific allegation as to how lamp was used, striking victim about the head. In re: B.A.C., 289 Ga.App. 588, 657 S.E.2d 652 (February 13, 2008). No fatal variance where delinquency petition alleged attack with “a black pipe,” while evidence showed that defendant possessed “a black sword in a sheath, approximately 12 inches in length.” “Any distinction between a black rod and a cylindrical, rod-like, black sword in a sheath did not prevent B.A.C. from having sufficient factual details regarding the charged offense or from preparing his defense. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 216 Ga.App. 450(2), 454 S.E.2d 638 (1995) (no fatal variance between allegation that victim was struck with a ‘certain stick’ – ‘the butt end of a boat oar which had been sawed off and then squared off,’ and testimony that the victim was struck with a ‘blackjack’ – a ‘foot-and-a-half long piece of hard, black rubber’ which was ‘flexible’ and ‘weighted at one end or the other’).” Lawson v. State, 278 Ga.App. 852, 630 S.E.2d 131 (April 13, 2006). No fatal variance between indictment, which accused defendant of attacking victim with a knife, and proof, which showed attack with box cutter. Compared to Mitchell v. State , 218 Ga.App. 330, 461 S.E.2d 292 (1995) (indictment referenced knife, evidence referenced broken glass) and Battles v. State , 262 Ga.App. 415, 420 S.E.2d 303 (1992) (indictment referenced wrench, evidence referenced gun used as blunt object). Accord, Souder v. State , 281 Ga.App. 339, 636 S.E.2d 68 (August 29, 2006) (“pole” vs. “pipe” as weapon not fatal variance); Holloway v. State , 297 Ga.App. 81, 676 S.E.2d 445 (March 26, 2009) (“‘crack cocaine smoking device,’ rather than a component of such device.”). Silvers v. State, 278 Ga. 45, 597 S.E.2d 373 (June 7, 2004). Indictment alleging armed robbery “by use of an offensive weapon, to wit: a firearm” was not void for failing to describe “the specific type of gun nor the caliber of the weapon.” Johnson v. State, 266 Ga.App. 898, 598 S.E.2d 551 (April 9, 2004). “Johnson argues that the indictment fatally varied from the evidence in that the indictment alleged he used a handgun when in fact he used a BB pistol. We discern no difference between the indictment’s use of the word ‘handgun’ and the evidence which showed that Johnson used a BB pistol. The indictment did not specify whether the handgun shot bullets or BBs, nor was such essential to establish the crime.” Accord, Palmer v. State , 286 Ga.App. 751, 650 S.E.2d 255 (June 4, 2007) (“[T]here is no fatal variance between the indictment’s allegation that the armed robbery at issue was committed through the use of a pistol and the evidence that the weapon used was a pellet gun.”); Wilson v. State , 291 Ga.App. 69, 661 S.E.2d 221 (April 11, 2008) (“The fact that the evidence revealed that the stolen weapon was a .45 caliber pistol while the indictment described it as a .25 caliber handgun did not create a fatal variance.”); Mathis v. State , 299 Ga.App. 831, 684 S.E.2d 6 (July 31, 2009) (same as Palmer ); Leeks v. State , 309 Ga.App. 724, 710 S.E.2d 908 (June 1, 2011) (no fatal variance between indictment’s description of air rifle and evidence of air pistol used in aggravated assault); Jones v. State , 312 Ga.App. 15, 717 S.E.2d 526 (October 13, 2011) (no fatal variance between indictment’s description of pellet pistol and evidence of BB gun used in armed robbery). Griffin v. State, 241 Ga.App. 783, 527 S.E.2d 577 (December 30, 1999). Convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses affirmed. “An indictment for aggravated assault that tracks the language of OCGA § 16-5-21(a)(2) and alleges an accused made ‘an assault upon the person of [victim], with a handgun, a deadly weapon,’ is not subject to demurrer for failure to inform the accused of the charges against him. Wallace v. State, 216 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 455 S.E.2d 615 (1995).” 15. DISJUNCTIVE/CONJUNCTIVE ALLEGATIONS New case! Graham v. State, A16A0297, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 3027507 (May 24, 2016). Aggravated assault and motor vehicle hikacking convictions affirmed; trial court properly instructed jury that the offenses could be committed by use of a firearm or replica of firearm, though the indictment was stated in the conjunctive rather than disjunctive. Cash v. State, 297 Ga. 859, 778 S.E.2d 785 (October 19, 2015). Felony murder convictions affirmed. Indictment charging, in one count, “that he had committed aggravated assault by assaulting the victim ‘with the intent to murder and