Indictment charges homicide by means "unknown to grand jury". Does not allege any alternate means. At trial, there is evidence of a specific means, sufficient for the jury to convict. (State proves grand jury used due diligence in attempting to determine means so notice to D is not an issue.) Is it permissible then to charge the jury on the means of causing death actually proved,OR must you simply make the charge track the indictment? Haven't found a case where this was dealt with - assumed it would be a variance question.
Research to date has come up with only cases where alternate specific means, (the one proven at trial), was charged conjunctively in the indictment along with the "unknown". Maybe it's too late in the day to formulate decent search parameters!!!!

These cases may or may not help, but may at least suggest some areas or directions in which to continue your search: Phelps, 999 S.W.2d at 518; Goodman, 190 S.W.3d at 832-3; Huffman, 775 S.W.2d at 662; Corbett, 493 S.W.2d at 952-3; Allen, 149 S.W.3d at 257.

Thanks, Martin. I've looked at those cases. Like the post says, it's no longer a variance issue, (See Fagan, 89 S.W.3d 245), but a notice issue, and the post assumes the State proves due diligence on the grand jury's part. My knee jerk reaction is that the jury charge goes to the jury consistent with the indictment and the "variance" is argued in that when the grand jury met they could not determine a specific cause, but the fact the evidence showed one just makes the case stronger. To put a specific manner and means in the charge when the indictment does not contain one just scares me, appellate wise. However, it really increases the State's burden to do so, and maybe the defense would not object. It's a lot easier to say "she's dead, and we don't know which of these things caused that", (shooting, stabbing, strangling, all of which were suffered by this poor lady), than to have to narrow it down to one thing.