Harvey Christopher Herrin appeals his conviction of three *261 counts of aggravated assault and two counts of false imprisonment. He enumerates three errors. Held:
1. Appellant enumerates that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present similar transaction evidence because the similar transaction notice was only a “general notice.” The notice identified numerous prior acts of violence but stated only general time periods during which various acts were asserted to have occurred. Appellant further contends that the State had the knowledge to make its notice more specific as to the dates of the incidents but did not do so to appellant’s detriment. At trial and during the State’s case-in-chief, the State made a proffer as to the nature and dates of the various prior acts of violence committed against the wife by having the wife testify under oath outside the presence of the jury. The wife was able to identify, with more specificity than given in the original notice, the dates of certain of the many violent acts committed against her; however, appellant made no attempt to elicit on the record when this information became known to the State. After the wife’s testimony, appellant renewed his mistrial motion but did not request a continuance in order to prepare for any disclosures made at the hearing. Appellant has failed to demonstrate affirmatively by the record that, at the time it issued the notice of intent to introduce similar transaction evidence, the State possessed more detailed information as to the dates of the similar transactions in issue and concealed such knowledge from the defense to the harm of appellant. Both error and harm must be affirmatively shown by the record to warrant a reversal.
Robinson v. State,
2. Appellant asserts the trial court erred during its recharge as to the offenses of aggravated assault and battery by failing to charge the jury that a battery could be committed by use of an object, thereby taking away the jury’s option of returning a verdict of guilty for the misdemeanor offense of battery. As conceded by appellant in his brief, the trial court’s initial charge to the jury was proper and was not objected to by appellant. However, the jury subsequently requested a recharge as to the difference between assault and battery; in response the trial court recharged the jury on the offenses of aggravated assault and battery; part of the aggravated assault charge contained a definition of assault. Thereafter, one juror indicated that the recharge did not answer the jury’s question, as “some of [the jurors] felt like that the assault was with an object,” and asked whether it made “sense” that “[b]attery is by hand or foot or something without an object.” After the trial judge indicated he could *262 not answer the question without commenting on the evidence, other than by giving the definitions of the offenses again, the juror stated that he had no difficulty understanding the definitions given. It was then stated by a juror that the question was whether “the charge of battery is from injuries caused by another person’s body or person not using a weapon” or “[a]n object period.” The trial court then instructed the jury to listen closely and repeated the recharge. Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury that aggravated assault was charged in Counts 1, 2, and 3; that the jury was to consider first the aggravated assault charge in each count; and if there existed a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt of aggravated assault in each count, and only in that event, would the jury move to the lesser included charge of battery. The jury was returned to the deliberation' room and did not thereafter request any farther instructions before returning its verdict.
When the jury requests more instructions upon a particular phase of the case, the trial court is under a duty to instruct them in a plain, clear manner so as to enlighten rather than confuse them.
Kimmel v. State,
3. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of the false imprisonment offenses. Both appellant’s wife and child testified that appellant told them to go to the well house or hayloft and cover up with hay so the police would not see
*263
them; appellant also told his wife not to do or say anything or he would kill her — he would fill the structure full of holes. After they entered the structure, appellant locked in his wife and child by securing the door with a nail. When securing the door, appellant told his wife and child they would die if they opened the door or came out of the structure. Appellant’s child was afraid; neither appellant’s wife nor child wanted to be in the structure. Although the child subsequently removed the nail and opened the door in an attempt to secure water for his injured mother, he saw approaching lights and, recalling appellant’s threats, relocked the door and remained hidden under the hay. The child and his mother did not leave the structure until the police arrived. “A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.” OCGA § 16-5-41 (a). This statute on its face does not require that the imprisonment be for a specific length of time; all that is required is there be an arrest, confinement or detention of the person, without legal authority, which violates the person’s personal liberty (i.e., against his or her will). Compare
Mayorga v. State,
Judgment affirmed.