Christopher M. Dunlop v. State, 05-14-00441-CR

Dunlop was charged with the misdemeanor offense of assault involving family violence (indictment alleged choking by applying pressure to the throat and neck).
The indictment states the conduct occurred on or about July 11, 2012, around 3:00 a.m., at Dunlop's home with Laura Free, a family/household member in a dating relationship to him.
Police officers Thornsby and Gendron responded to a 911 call; Free and her daughter described the incident and provided statements that were admitted without objection.
Free testified at trial that Dunlop did not place hands on her throat or neck and that he pulled her hair in a sexual manner; she claimed she lied to police initially.
Free’s witness statement described Dunlop grabbing Free by the neck and squeezing, and threatening to snap her neck; Free claimed pain to the head/neck area and increased fear.
The jury found Dunlop guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor assault; the trial court affirmed a family-violence finding, imposed one year confinement (suspended), and placed him on two years of community supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fatal variance exists between indictment and proof	Dunlop argues the only uncontroverted testimony showed pulling hair, not throat pressure.	The State contends proof included neck pressure as alleged, sufficing under the indictment.	No fatal variance; evidence supports the throat-pressure theory and conviction.
Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction given the variance claim	Dunlop contends the evidence proves only hair-pulling, not the indictment-mandated means.	Evidence showed neck pressure and fear, supporting bodily injury by pressure on the throat/neck.	Evidence was sufficient to prove bodily injury by the means alleged; conviction affirmed.

Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (variance review requires a hypothetically correct jury charge; fatal variance must prejudice)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (definition of fatal variance and proper sufficiency framework)
Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard for sufficiency and credibility in evaluating conflicting inferences)
Lane v. State, 763 S.W.2d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (bodily injury broad interpretation; includes more than mere offensive touching)
York v. State, 833 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992) (reliability of corroborating testimony and sufficiency when complainant’s credibility is at issue)
Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jury credibility determinations and recantations viewed through the defense of trial witness)