☢ test - Í

back, put his hands back, and stopped trying to physically apprehend Thompson.” Howell v. State, 330 Ga.App. 668, 769 S.E.2d 98 (February 11, 2015). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; jury charge on handgun as per se deadly weapon wasn’t error. “In this case, the aggravated assault count of the indictment accused Howell of committing an assault ... ‘with a deadly weapon, a handgun, when he struck Lauren Holloway in the head with [the] handgun[.]’ In its instruction to the jury, the trial court correctly charged that the State had the burden of proving the material element that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, as alleged in the indictment. However, the trial court further charged the jury that ‘[a] handgun[,] when used as such[,] is a deadly weapon as a matter of law.’” Distinguishing Byrd v. State, 325 Ga.App. 24 (752 S.E.2d 84) (2013), (similar charge improper where evidence failed to show that defendant struck victim violently resulting in significant injury). “Here, by contrast, there was overwhelming evidence to establish that the handgun constituted a deadly weapon. The evidence was undisputed that Holloway was struck on the side of her head with the handgun so violently that it knocked her down and that the blow she sustained caused the side of her head to swell and bleed. Moreover, Holloway's perception of the degree of force that Howell had used against her was apparent because she immediately begged him to ‘please get out before you kill me for real.’ See generally Ortiz v. State, 292 Ga.App. 378, 381(2) (665 S.E.2d 333) (2008) (where the evidence showed, without conflict, that defendant struck the victim so hard with a handgun that it caused the victim's head and face to bleed and victim testified that feared he would be killed, the handgun was per se a deadly weapon).” “Although we agree that the trial court's charge would have been error if it had stated that the use of a gun in committing an assault would always constitute an aggravated assault, this it did not do. The jury was told that the State must prove that the assault was with a deadly weapon and that a handgun could be one, depending on how it was used. The jury was free to decide either way.” Hendrix v. State, 328 Ga.App. 819, 762 S.E.2d 820 (August 13, 2014). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; jury could find that table thrown at victim by defendant was a “deadly weapon.” “This Court has determined that a variety of objects, which are not weapons per se, may be likely to cause serious bodily injury when used offensively, depending upon the circumstances in which they are used. See Talley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 548, 550(1)(b) (224 S.E.2d 455) (1976) (lamp); Simmons v. State, 149 Ga.App. 830, 831–832(2) (256 S.E.2d 79) (1979) (beer bottle); Banks v. State, 169 Ga.App. 571, 571–572(1) (314 S.E.2d 235) (1984) (ceramic statute); Gough v. State, 236 Ga.App. 568, 569(1) (512 S.E.2d 682) (1999) (hammer). One law enforcement officer testified that if someone Hendrix's size threw a table at him, he would fear ‘substantial bodily injury’ and would use deadly force to protect himself. [Another witness] testified that he was concerned that he would be injured by the table.” Weaver v. State, 325 Ga.App. 51, 752 S.E.2d 128 (November 20, 2013). Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea to aggravated assault; evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant’s use of pepper spray on victim’s face was use of “an object, device or instrument likely to cause serious bodily injury under OCGA § 16–5–21(a)(2).” “This court has previously held that a bruise provides evidence that an instrument was likely to cause serious bodily injury. See Reynolds v. State, 294 Ga.App. 213, 217(1)(c), 668 S.E.2d 846 (2008) (bruises caused by wooden plank); Hernandez v. State, 274 Ga.App. 390, 617 S.E.2d 630 (2005) (welt or bruise caused by branch sufficient to support finding of ‘likely to result in serious bodily injury’).” Also citing Harwell v. State , 270 Ga. 765, 767-768(1), 512 S.E.2d 892 (1999) (“the use of a stun gun to administer a temporary shock presented a jury question on the issue of whether the offensive use was likely to result in serious bodily injury.”). “Here, the State's proffer showed that the victim suffered a burning sensation in his eyes and face, was in a great deal of pain, and was temporarily blinded. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that this evidence supported a guilty plea to aggravated assault based upon the use of ‘any object, device or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to ... result in serious bodily injury.’ OCGA § 16–5–21(a)(2). Cases from other jurisdictions support this conclusion. [Cits.]” Byrd v. State, 325 Ga.App. 24, 752 S.E.2d 84 (November 20, 2013). Aggravated assault conviction reversed; jury charge that “[a] firearm, when used as such, is a deadly weapon as a matter of law,” wasn’t applicable when the firearm was “used as a bludgeon or club.” Further, the State failed to present any evidence “to show the circumstances surrounding the use of the handgun to strike Lo on his lip, such as the degree of force used, the likelihood of serious injury, or the nature of the injuries actually received. See generally Williams v. State, 127 Ga.App. 386, 389(2), 193 S.E.2d 633 (1972). Compare Green v. State, 221 Ga.App. 694, 695(2)–696(3), 472 S.E.2d 457 (1996) (affirming a conviction for aggravated assault where witness testified that defendant hit the victim in the head with the pistol so violently that it sounded like a shot and resulted in bleeding); Ortiz v. State, 292 Ga.App. 378, 381(2), 665 S.E.2d 333 (2008) (aggravated assault established where the evidence showed, without conflict, that defendant struck the victim with a handgun so violently that it caused the victim to bleed, and victim testified that, during the attack, he was afraid because