☢ test - Í

while assaulting [the victim] with a firearm, a deadly weapon” authorized conviction under either OCGA § 16–5–21(b)(1) (assault with intent to murder), or OCGA § 16–5–21(b)(2) (assault with a deadly weapon). “‘[I]t is sufficient for the State to show that it was committed in any one of the separate ways listed in the indictment, even if the indictment uses the conjunctive rather than disjunctive form.’ Gipson v. State, 332 Ga.App. 309, 317(5), 772 S.E.2d 402 (2015) (citation and punctuation omitted).” Trial court only charged the jury on assault with a deadly weapon, however; “‘as the trial court’s omission from its charge of [one] mode[ ] of commission of the crimes charged was advantageous to [the appellant], any error in this regard was harmless.’ Davis v. State, 181 Ga.App. 28, 29(2), 351 S.E.2d 458 (1986).” Gipson v. State, 332 Ga.App. 309, 772 S.E.2d 402 (May 6, 2015). Where indictment alleged that Gipson committed aggravated battery “‘by depriving [the victim] of a member of ... her body, by rendering a member of said [victim's] body useless, and by seriously disfiguring ... her body and a member thereof’ when he caused the victim to fall backward out of the chair and fracture one of her vertebrae, (Emphasis supplied.)” trial court properly charged jury that it could convict if it found any one of the three alleged methods of committing the offense to have been proven. Chynoweth v. State, 331 Ga.App. 123, 768 S.E.2d 536 (February 11, 2015). Convictions for rioting in a penal institution and felony obstruction affirmed; State could prove rioting by showing that defendant acted in a violent or tumultuous manner, notwithstanding conjunctive allegation in indictment. Maurer v. State, 320 Ga.App. 585, 740 S.E.2d 318 (March 21, 2013). Child molestation conviction affirmed; where indictment alleged defendant intended to satisfy the desires of both defendant and victim, proof of either was sufficient. Judice v. State, 308 Ga.App. 229, 707 S.E.2d 114 (February 24, 2011). Child molestation conviction affirmed; indictment that alleged offense was committed by kissing, exposing privates, and having intercourse was adequately proven with evidence of the first two acts. Watson v. State, 301 Ga.App. 824, 689 S.E.2d 104 (December 30, 2009). Defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault affirmed; where indictment alleged that defendant committed aggravated assault both by pointing a gun and threatening to kill the victim may be proven by either method. “‘Where conjunctive pleadings set forth more than one act by which the accused committed the crime, the evidence is sufficient so long as it shows at least one of the acts alleged.’ Straker v. State, 259 Ga.App. 904, 905-906(a) (578 S.E.2d 568) (2003). See Wilson v. State, 234 Ga.App. 375, 375(1) (506 S.E.2d 882) (1998) (‘[i]f a crime may be committed in more than one way, it is sufficient for the State to show that it was committed in any one of the separate ways listed in the indictment, even if the indictment uses the conjunctive rather than disjunctive form’). Because pointing the gun at the victims was one way of establishing aggravated assault, see Willingham v. State, 281 Ga. 577, 579 (642 S.E.2d 43) (2007) (‘the presence of a gun would normally place a victim in reasonable apprehension of being injured violently’) (punctuation omitted), whereas threatening to kill them while pointing the gun at them was a second way, the evidence of the verbal threat-even though included conjunctively in the indictment-was unnecessary to sustain the convictions.” Accord, Cantu v. State , 304 Ga.App. 655, 697 S.E.2d 310 (June 28, 2010) (indictment alleged multiple acts of child molestation in a single count; proof of any of the acts was sufficient to convict); Riddick v. State , 320 Ga.App. 500, 740 S.E.2d 244 (March 19, 2013) (allegation that defendant committed child molestation by “touching [the child's] vagina and placing his finger in her vagina” could be proven by evidence of either act). Ortiz v. State, 292 Ga.App. 378, 665 S.E.2d 333 (May 2, 2008). “The indictment in this case charged Ortiz with armed robbery based on allegations that he took United States currency from the ‘person and immediate presence’ (emphasis supplied) of Correa by use of a handgun. Although the indictment was thus phrased in the conjunctive, it was sufficient for the state to show that the armed robbery was committed in either way listed in the indictment, i.e., that money was taken from Correa’s person or immediate presence. Stone v. State, 229 Ga.App. 367, 370(1)(b) (494 S.E.2d 48) (1997) (if crime may be committed in more than one way, it is sufficient for state to show that it was committed in any of the separate ways listed in indictment, even if indictment uses conjunctive rather than disjunctive form).” Accord, Greene v. State , 295 Ga.App. 803, 673 S.E.2d 292 (January 30, 2009) (statute provides that kidnapping with bodily injury occurs “when a person abducts or steals away any person....”; proper to charge the jury in the disjunctive although the indictment charge the defendant with “abducting and stealing away” the victim, “[g]iven that the terms … represent synonyms.”). State v. Daniels, 281 Ga.App. 224, 635 S.E.2d 835 (August 22, 2006). Trial court erred in dismissing charges against defendant based on allegedly defective indictment. “We recognize that ‘[w]hen a defendant is charged with the violation of a penal statute containing disjunctively several ways or methods a crime may be committed, proof of any one of which