of error, Wheeler contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the definition of “indecent acts” or “purposes.” But in the section of his appellate brief supposedly dedicated to this contention, Wheeler appears, instead, to reassert his argument that the trial court erred in providing the full statutory definition on enticing a child for indecent purposes, which he contends allowed him to be convicted in a manner not alleged in the indictment. Regardless, we disagree. Decided May 16, 2014. Billy L. Spruell, Melinda D. Taylor, for appellant. Lee Darragh, District Attorney, Juliet Aldridge, Assistant District Attorney, for tate, 302 Ga. App. 128, 130 (1) (690 SE2d 449) (2010) (punctuation omitted). 10 See Burgess v. State, 292 Ga. 821, 823 (4) 454) (2013) (<HOLDING>). 15 Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565
holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness holding no error occurred in excluding portion of statement offered by defendant because the rejected portion of the conversation in no manner explains or modifies that portion of the conversation which came into evidence holding any error in admitting eye witness testimony was harmless because it was cumulative to other overwhelming evidence that established defendants guilt holding that error if any in excluding portion of defendants statement to police was harmless because similar evidence was admitted through the testimony of another witness