Rоbert J. Collins, Jr. was found guilty on one count of child molestation. He appeals on three grounds.
1. (а) On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in the light most favоrable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. An appellate court determines only the legal sufficiency of the evidenсe adduced below and does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnessеs.
Brown v. State,
“A pеrson commits the offense of child molestation when he or she does any immoral or indecеnt act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.” OCGA § 16-6-4 (a).
Construed in favor of the vеrdict, the evidence shows that Collins was a friend of the eight-year-old victim’s mother. On September 21, 2001, Collins volunteered to take the girl to a friend’s house, but instead of doing so, he turned down a secluded dirt road and stopped. He told the girl to get out of the truck and to take off her underwear. He thеn took out his penis, showed it to the girl, asked her to touch it, and eventually made her do so. The viсtim testified that he then touched her “private part” with his finger. She denied that Collins had *382 touched her рrivate part with his private part. She testified that she did not remember telling the investigating officer or a person from the Child Advocacy Center that he had done so. Finally, Collins told the girl that he would kill hеr sister if she told anyone what had happened.
In voluntary statements to the police, Collins аdmitted that he took the child down a dirt road and stopped and that he had her put her hand on his рenis. He also said “that he then put his penis in [the girl], but she said it hurt, so he stopped.”
The child’s mother testified that her daughter told her that during the incident, “he made her do a lot of different things” and that “he laid down and made her get on top of him and made her touch him.”
The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
(b) Collins contends that the State did not prove the allegations of the indictment. The indictment charged Collins with child molestation in that he “... did perform an immoral and indecent act to [the victim], a child under the age of sixteen (16) years, by inserting his pеnis into said victim’s vagina, with intent to arouse and satisfy the sexual desires of said accused____” Collins notеs that the child denied that he touched her private part with his private part. But Collins’s own statement that he “put his penis in” the girl is sufficient proof that he inserted his penis into her vagina. See
Pippins v. State,
Furthermore, any variance between the indictment and the proof was not fatal. The evidence showed that Collins either (1) showed her his penis and put it in her vagina, or (2) showed her his penis and put his finger in her vagina. Under either scenario, Collins acted with the intent to arouse or to satisfy his sexuаl desires by touching the victim. See, e.g.,
Enloe v. State,
2. Collins contends the trial court erred by failing to give a charge on sexual battery as a lesser included offense. He argues that “since there is no direct evidence of the defendant’s intent, the charge of *383 sexual battery would have been appropriate, because the mere аct of having the victim touch his penis amounted to sexual battery and not child molestation.”
But Collins is mistaken because having the child touch his penis is not a sexual battery. “A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.” OCGA § 16-6-22.1 (b).
Furthermore, even if Collins touched the victim’s vagina only with his hand and not his penis, аs shown above it is undisputed that under either scenario presented by the facts, Collins did so with the spеcific intent of arousing or satisfying his sexual desires. Where the only evidence shows sexual activity rather than mere touching, a charge on sexual battery is not warranted. See, e.g.,
Jarvis v. State,
3. Finally, Collins cоntends that there was insufficient corroborating evidence to establish that he inserted his penis in the victim’s vagina. But Collins’s own statement that he “put his penis in [the girl], but she said it hurt, so he stopped,” provides sufficient corroboration.
Judgment affirmed.