not a legal term” and further suggested that the court tell the jury to refer back to the jury charge and indictment. The jury was brought back into the courtroom, and the trial court did exactly as defense counsel suggested. Thus, because Wheeler explicitly agreed with this approach, he has waived review of this issue on appeal. 5. In his final enu (714 SE2d 91) (2011) (punctuation omitted). 16 Id. 17 OCGA § 17-8-58 (a). 18 Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 615 (5) (724 SE2d 377) (2012). 19 Id. (punctuation omitted). 20 See OCGA § 17-8-58 (b); see also King v. State, 317 Ga. App. 834, 837 (1) (733 SE2d 21) (2012). 21 Machado v. State, 300 Ga. App. 459, 462 (5) (685 SE2d 428) (2009) (punctuation omitted). 22 Id. (punctuation omitted). 23 Id. (punctuation omitted). 24 See id. at 462-63 (5) (<HOLDING>); Stephens v. State, 255 Ga. App. 680, 684-85
holding that trial courts jury instructions as a whole which indicated that defendant could only be found guilty if the state proved every material allegation in the indictment cured any potential problem that may have occurred when the court charged the entirety of the childmolestation statute holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted holding that even when a jury instruction is defective such a defect is cured when the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt holding that although the indictment did not track the exact language of the statute the indictment when read as a whole sufficiently stated facts which support every element of the crime charged and apprised defendant of the specific charge against him