☢ test - Í

indictment and the proof at trial.” Hernandez v. State, 319 Ga.App. 876, 738 S.E.2d 701 (February 22, 2013). Conviction for aggravated child molestation based on oral sodomy affirmed; no fatal variance where child victim referred to her “lower private area” rather than her “vagina.” “‘If the indictment correctly states whose sex organ and whose mouth are involved in the sodomy, there will generally be no fatal variance.’ (Citation, punctuation, and footnotes omitted.) Turner v. State, 231 Ga.App. 747, 747– 748(1), 500 S.E.2d 628 (1998).” Calhoun v. State, 318 Ga.App. 835, 734 S.E.2d 809 (November 28, 2012). Aggravated assault conviction reversed; evidence failed to prove the offense as alleged in the indictment. Indictment alleged that defendant pointed a gun at victim; evidence showed that defendant threatened to blow victim’s head off while pointing the gun at someone else. Accord, Ford-Calhoun v. State , 327 Ga.App. 835, 761 S.E.2d 388 (July 3, 2014) (allegation that defendants pointed a gun at victim weren’t supported by the evidence and weren’t mere surplusage). Haynes v. State, 302 Ga.App. 296, 690 S.E.2d 925 (February 11, 2010). No fatal variance where indictment alleged that defendant committed child molestation when he “place[d] his hands on the chest, stomach, and vaginal area” of victim, but evidence only supported his touching of her chest and stomach. “‘Contrary to [Hayne's] assertion, our law does not demand that each statement of the indictment be proven. A variance between the allegata and the probata is not fatal unless it misinforms the defendant as to the charges against him or leaves him open to subsequent prosecutions for the same offense.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harmon v. State, 208 Ga.App. 271, 273(3) (430 S.E.2d 399) (1993) overruled on other grounds Waits v. State, 282 Ga. 1, 5(2) (644 S.E.2d 127) (2007).” Reversed on other grounds, Watson v. State , 297 Ga. 718, 777 S.E.2d 677 (September 14, 2015). Hobby v. State, 298 Ga.App. 52, 679 S.E.2d 72 (May 19, 2009). No fatal variance: “the indictment charged [defendant] with threatening to ‘murder’ the neighbor whereas the evidence only showed that he threatened to ‘kill’ the neighbor. Such is hardly a fatal variance, as to be fatal the variance must ‘affect the substantial rights of the accused.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Lawhorn v. State, 200 Ga.App. 451, 453(1) (408 S.E.2d 425) (1991). The indictment here definitely informed Hobby as to the charge against him so as to enable him to present his defense and to avoid surprise, and further protected him against another prosecution for the same offense. See id. at 453-454(1). We discern no error.” State v. Austin, 297 Ga.App. 478, 677 S.E.2d 706 (April 13, 2009). No fatal variance where indictment for aggravated assault referred to “serious bodily harm” instead of “serious bodily injury.” “The words ‘harm’ and ‘injury’ are commonly viewed as synonyms, and Black's Law Dictionary defines ‘bodily harm’ by cross-referencing ‘bodily injury.’” In re: R.C., 289 Ga.App. 293, 656 S.E.2d 914 (January 24, 2008). No fatal variance: delinquency petition alleged that one person notified minor to stay off school property, while evidence showed that a different person gave the notice. “Here, the undisputed evidence showed that R.C. came onto school property after having been advised that he was not permitted to do so. He has not demonstrated that the variance between the petition and the proof mislead him in any manner that surprised him at trial, impaired his defense, or subjected him to another prosecution for the same offense. [Cit.]” Roach v. State, 289 Ga.App. 23, 656 S.E.2d 165 (December 14, 2007). Fatal variance required reversal of defendant’s conviction for criminal trespass. Defendant was charged with violating OCGA § 16-7-21(b)(3) – remaining on premises after notice to leave. Evidence showed that defendant left when told to. Evidence arguably supported conviction for violating subsection (b)(2) – entering premises after being told not to – but that offense wasn’t charged. “Proof that the crime was committed in a wholly different manner amounts to a fatal variance and does not support a conviction of the offense alleged in the accusation. [ Feagin v. State, 198 Ga.App. 460, 461-463(2) (402 S.E.2d 80) (1991)].” Curtis v. State, 285 Ga.App. 298, 645 S.E.2d 705 (May 8, 2007). In defendants’ prosecution for obstruction of officer, no fatal variance where accusation referred to officer as “he” but evidence showed that officer was a “she.” “Indeed, in the obstruction count in the accusation, the State was merely tracking the language of the governing statute, which itself uses the masculine pronoun ‘his’ to include the feminine gender. See OCGA § 16-10-24(a) (‘a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor’) (emphasis supplied).”