trial court asking as follows: “Does child molestation require sex?” Then, during the ensuing discussion between counsel and the trial court as to how to best address the jury’s question, Wheeler’s trial counsel agreed that “[s]ex (569 SE2d 250) (2002) (noting that “[a]s a general rule, it is not error to charge an entire Code section even though part of the section may be inapplicable,” and holding that charging the jury on the entire child-molestation statute, despite the narrower language in the indictment, was not error when the court also instructed the jury that the State must prove the offense as charged in the indictment). 25 Tidwell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 468, 474 (4) (718 SE2d 808) (2011) (punctuation omitted). 26 See Lake v. State, 293 Ga. 56, 57 (3) (743 SE2d 414) (2013) (<HOLDING>); see also Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680,
holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding that defendant failed to preserve for appeal argument that trial court inadequately recharged the jury after jury requested a written definition of a charge when after discussing the issue defendant explicitly agreed with trial courts response to the jurys request holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after