In Sledge v. State, 953 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child on a particular date. At a pre-trial hearing, the State told the court that the defendant's conduct had been continuous over several years. The defendant asked the State to elect the specific instances on which it would proceed. The State accommodated and graphically described the two specific instances upon which it would rely, even though these particular instances did not occur on the precise date set out in the indictment. The trial judge, noting that the defendant had not had sufficient notice of those particular incidents, granted the defense a continuance "to prepare a defense based on the designated offenses." At trial, the prosecution presented evidence of only those two instances which, as it had acknowledged pre-trial, did not occur on the date set out in the indictment. They had, however, occurred within the statute of limitations, had been graphically specified for the defendant before trial, and they were events for which the defendant was given additional time to prepare. The defendant complained on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient because the State failed to prove that the specific offenses occurred on the date alleged in the indictment. These incidents were, according to the defendant, unindicted and extraneous offenses because they occurred a year or more before the charged date. No, no, said this Court; the State alleged two specific acts in the indictment, and the State proved two specific acts which conformed to those described in the indictment, and there was "no reason to believe that the offenses presented to the grand jury were different from the offenses proven at trial."