Because the date difference does not affect the determination of whether the indictment in this case was filed within the applicable statute of limitation periods, the error was harmless. See McDaniel v. State , 289 Ga. App. 722, 725-726 (4), 658 S.E.2d 248 (2008) ("[W]hen the exact date of a crime is not a material allegation of the indictment, the crime may be proved to have taken place on any date prior to the return of the indictment, so long as the date is within the applicable statute of limitation [period].") (punctuation and footnote omitted). See former OCGA § 17-3-1 (b) (2002) ("[P]rosecution for the crime of forcible rape must be commenced within 15 years after the commission of the crime."); see also Division 1, supra.
Id. at 699(2), 707 S.E.2d 359. When the exact date of a crime is not a material allegation in the indictment, the State may prove the crime took place on any date prior to the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitation. McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga.App. 722, 725–726(4), 658 S.E.2d 248 (2008).The indictment alleges that the crime occurred “between the 28th day of July, 2000 and the 29th day of July 2000[.]” At trial, although there was some conflicting testimony as to when the crime occurred, the conflicting dates were within the statute of limitation.
Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Harris's conviction of the robbery of the Beauty Town store.See McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga.App. 722, 723(1), 658 S.E.2d 248 (2008) (Evidence to corroborate testimony by a single accomplice may consist entirely of circumstantial evidence and may include defendant's conduct before and after the crime was committed). FN12. Bearden v. State, 275 Ga.App. 378, 380(1), 620 S.E.2d 613 (2005).
Consequently, Eskew's claim that the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial on this ground has been waived.SeeMcDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 725 (3) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). 4. Eskew argues that the court erred in failing to merge, for sentencing purposes, his convictions on the two counts of aggravated battery.
(Footnote omitted.) McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 723 (1) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). "[Corroboration requires only slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act."
(Footnote omitted.) McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 723 (1) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). In the case at bar, McCarrell testified that she and Savage entered the store; that she asked "the manager" to come to the back with her so that she could use the restroom; that she was looking for her backpack when the manager came through the door; that Savage grabbed the manager and held a gun on her; and that they tied her up. Becky Barnes, the assistant manager, and the person whom McCarrell confronted, corroborated McCarrell's testimony.
(Punctuation omitted.) McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 726 (6) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). Here, the trial court asked the jurors whether they were related to Officer McCullough, the arresting officer in the case, and none of them responded affirmatively.
Whether the corroborating evidence is sufficient is a matter for the jury.McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 724 (1) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). Here, police discovered a van resembling the one used in the theft at Harris's residence.
(Footnote omitted.) McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 725 (3) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008). Burton waived her objection that the letter constituted improper character evidence, and therefore we cannot consider her second enumeration of error.
Thus, on appeal, Brown argues that the admission of the knife was error because the lack of evidence proving that Timmons had been stabbed rendered the knife irrelevant. Because Brown failed to object to the knife's admission on relevancy grounds at trial, however, he cannot raise this claim of error on appeal. See McDaniel v. State, 289 Ga. App. 722, 725 (3) ( 658 SE2d 248) (2008) ("The specific ground of objection must be made at the time the evidence is offered, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of that specific ground.") (citation and punctuation omitted). More importantly, even if properly raised, our holding in Division 1 renders this argument meritless.