LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is from a judgment on a verdict of guilty of robbery, D.C. Code § 22-2901.

Though counsel for appellant, appointed by this court, has developed and forcefully presented three contentions for our consideration, we find that neither separately nor in combination do they constitute grounds of reversal.

I

We begin by considering, and rejecting, the contention that the evidence was not sufficient to submit the case to the jury on the charge of robbery. The complaining witness testified that before leaving home to go to church on the morning of November 15, 1964, she counted the money in her wallet, which contained a five dollar bill folded in a particular manner, a Kennedy half dollar, five quarters, five dimes, one penny and three bus tokens on a safety pin. She was waiting at a bus stop among a number of other people when someone yelled that a man had snatched her wallet out of her bag. She looked down and saw her pocketbook open and her wallet missing. She turned just at that moment and saw a man, whom she identified at trial as appellant, running from the scene. A number of persons at the bus stop called out, "That is him that is running."

Appellant, who admitted being at the bus stop, was easily identifiable by a distinctive tam hat. The victim, as well as several other bystanders, immediately began to pursue appellant. One of his pursuers testified that appellant, when cornered at one point, first offered him money, and then threatened that appellant's "boys" would "take care" of him. Appellant managed to get away, but was finally captured, after a struggle, by an off-duty police officer with the aid of that pursuer.

Appellant was found to have in his possession one five dollar bill, folded in a peculiar manner, and identified at trial as the one that had been in the victim's pocketbook, seven or eight one dollar bills which were apparently his own, five dimes and at least five quarters, a sole Kennedy half dollar, a single penny and three bus tokens on a safety pin. The wallet and the personal papers it contained were never recovered.

Appellant testified in his own behalf that he too was pursuing the real thief, offering a description coinciding with that given by the victim for a man who had fled behind appellant. Appellant claimed that the real thief had dropped the five dollar bill and the tokens on a pin and appellant had picked up the items while continuing the chase.

Appellant argues that the evidence only warranted a submission to the jury of a larceny charge, and that there was insufficient evidence of a taking from the person or immediate actual possession of the victim. Appellant relies on Hunt v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 316 F.2d 652 (1963). Hunt was an unusual case where there was a reasonable inference, from the proven jostling of the victim by the crowd, that the pocketbook opened and the wallet fell out. Here there was a group of people around the bus stop, but no evidence of any jostling or pushing of the victim, and no proven factual circumstances from which it could be inferred, by some reasoning going beyond mere speculation, that the wallet had fallen. Graves v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 318 F.2d 265 (1963). In addition, there is the unchallenged testimony by the victim that someone actually saw the defendant take the wallet out of the victim's purse. That testimony is hearsay, says appellant. But the victim was on the stand and could testify as to the yelling and calling she heard since these were spontaneous exclamations admissible within a well-known exception to the hearsay rule, sometimes referred to by the catch-all "res gestae" phrase. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1755 (3d ed., 1940), and cases cited.

The sufficiency of the evidence is manifest when this testimony is coupled with the evidence that appellant was at the bus stop and was found to have the stolen money in his possession.

II

The statute provides, D.C. Code § 22-2901:

Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery * * *.

The indictment reads:

On or about November 15, 1964, within the District of Columbia, Frederick Jackson, by force and violence and against resistance and by putting in fear, stole and took from the person and from the immediate actual possession of Martha J. Ray, property of Martha J. Ray.

Our conclusion above that there was evidence of commission of the crime is plainly based on the evidence showing a "sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching." But those critical words, notes appellant, were omitted from the indictment. It was therefore error, he claims, for the trial judge to instruct the jury that they could find defendant guilty of robbery if they found the defendant had taken Mrs. Ray's purse by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching.

The probability that the omission in the indictment was an unfortunate slip of the pen would not bar reversal if a substantial right of appellant were denied. We do not think that was the case. A defendant may not be tried for a crime with which he was not charged. And the indictment must adequately set out allegations amounting to a crime. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962), dismissing an indictment lacking a critical element. Here, however, the indictment obviously is not subject to dismissal.

The indictment alleged the critical element of the crime, a taking "by force or violence." Such taking can be against resistance. Or it can be by stealthy snatching. The common law crime of robbery did not include stealthy snatching, but the statute expands the definition of the crime. Neufield v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 174, 189, 118 F.2d 375, 390 (1941), cert. denied, sub nom. Ruben v. United States, 315 U.S. 798, 62 S.Ct. 580, 86 L.Ed. 1199 (1942). Thus, in a pickpocket robbery case this court has made it clear that "the requirement for force [in the robbery statute] is satisfied by an actual physical taking of the property from the person of another, even though without his knowledge and consent, and though the property be unattached to his person." Turner v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 39, 16 F.2d 535 (1926). In Spencer v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 98, 116 F.2d 801 (1940), the statutory concept was stated as embracing the "force" used in taking property from the "immediate actual possession" of another, regarded as "an area within which the victim could reasonably be expected to exercise some physical control over his property."

The indictment could validly have been limited to an allegation of a taking "by force or violence" on the date and from the person in question. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932). Detailed specification of how such taking was made was available for discovery by defendant on appropriate motion. The language in the indictment, that the taking was against resistance, was a specification of a way of committing the offense. Turner v. United States, supra. It was surplusage, and its proof was not required. United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201, 203, 46 S.Ct. 476, 70 L.Ed. 904 (1926); Tomlinson v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 106, 108, 93 F.2d 652, 654, 114 A.L.R. 1315 (1937), cert. denied sub nom. Pratt v. United States, 303 U.S. 642, 58 S.Ct. 645, 82 L.Ed. 1107 (1938). The federal courts have scrapped the old rule condemning every variance between indictment and proof, and convictions are not now set aside except for variance resulting in substantial prejudice to defendant. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 81, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); United States v. Krepper, 159 F.2d 958, 959, 971 (3d Cir. 1946) cert. denied, 330 U.S. 824, 67 S.Ct. 865, 91 L. Ed. 1275 (1947); Rule 52(a) Fed.R.Crim.P.

We have carefully considered Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960), and are convinced that it does not require a contrary result. The indictment under the Hobbs Act charged Stirone with extortion affecting interstate commerce through wrongful use of a threatened labor dispute, directed against one Rider, to interfere with shipments of sand to his Pennsylvania concrete plant. At the trial, over defense objection, the judge admitted evidence concerning, and instructed the jury that guilt could be rested on, interference with interstate commerce in regard to possible future shipments of steel to points outside of Pennsylvania from a steel mill being constructed with concrete from Rider's plant. "We cannot know," wrote Justice Black, "whether the grand jury would have included in its indictment a charge that commerce in steel from a nonexistent steel mill had been interfered with." Defendant effectively had ben deprived of his right "to have the grand jury make the charge on its own judgment." 361 U.S. at 219, 80 S.Ct. at 274.

In Stirone the prosecution was relying at trial on a complex of facts distinctly different from that which the grand jury set forth in the indictment. A court may readily perceive a plausible possibility of prejudice in the contention that a federal grand jury willing to indict an extortioner for his interference with an existing stream of interstate commerce might very well have been unwilling to bring him to the dock for a situation, however grievous, which had no federal implication except in terms of a potential interference with a future line of interstate commerce. In the case before us, there is a single set of facts, the obtaining of property of the complaining witness on the date in question by force and violence. Without deciding whether Stirone would govern if timely objection had been made, as in Stirone, we think it appropriate to observe that the variance is less substantial in factual degree than the one involved in Stirone.

If Stirone is pushed to extremes, it would reinstate the old rule making every variance fatal. Stirone is to be read in harmony with Berger, which was cited and not repudiated in Stirone. If there is timely objection a variance may be fatal even though defendant cannot affirmatively demonstrate actual prejudice. But even with timely objection a variance that does not add a new set of facts will not be fatal without a showing of reasonable possibility of prejudice. Epps v. United States, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 244, 157 F.2d 11 (1946). In every case of variance it can be argued that the grand jury that returned the indictment as is might not have been willing to return the indictment with the variance. This possibility can never be conclusively eliminated as a matter of abstract logic. Whether there is a reasonable possibility of prejudice, however, should be determined with some reference to the real world of juries and grand juries, and the realm of common sense which must guide the administration of the criminal law and rules of criminal procedure. Compare United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 267, 47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1927).

It is decisive that in the case at bar, unlike Stirone, there was no objection to the introduction of the "variant" evidence. Nor is there any showing or claim of actual prejudice. In fact, the record virtually negatives prejudice since the defense counsel himself told the jury: "Now, the crime of robbery as the Judge will instruct you must be some kind of a taking with a force or violence, whether against resistance or by a sudden or stealthy seizure or putting someone in fear." (Emphasis supplied.) When the anticipated instruction duly ensued it was not made the subject of objection, request, or proposed clarification.

The failure of defense counsel to object to variant proof may not be presumed to reflect mere inattentiveness or indifference to his client's interests. In many cases, as in the case at bar, a defense counsel may well conclude that there is nothing to be gained from such an objection, in view of the virtual certainty that the grand jury will reindict. Such cases differ from Stirone, where it was plausible that a grand jury might not reindict. The calculation of defense counsel must take into account not only the lack of benefit, but also the positive disadvantages of raising an objection that in all likelihood will only delay and not avoid the trial. In this case appellant, being unable to furnish bail, was in jail, and he would predictably continue to be confined in jail awaiting the new indictment and the new trial date. If acquitted, he would have spent unnecessary time in confinement. Even an accused who is free on bail may opt for trial now rather than later, whether because of the availability of witnesses or other tactical reasons, or because of the natural desire to resolve the overhanging charge as promptly as possible.

The central point is that defense counsel may realistically and soundly consider a variance as an essentially technical objection, with the defendant having nothing to gain and something to lose by pressing the point.

A defendant who does press an objection on the ground of variance merits respectful consideration, unless there is no reasonable possibility of prejudice. But here no objection was taken at the trial. In view of considerations outlined above we do not believe the case warrants invoking the plain error rule.

III

Appellant objects to statements, set forth in the margin, made during the prosecutor's closing argument. The rules permit advocacy by the prosecutor but not testimony. His reference to the "reputable officers" and "very sweet" complaining witness who testified for the Government do not exceed advocacy. We are more concerned with his statement that the Government was "exceptionally proud" of its witnesses in this case, witnesses described as more impressive than witnesses in many other criminal cases. That smacks of reference to matters outside the record, and may warrant consideration notwithstanding failure of defense counsel to object at the trial.

Reversal is not appropriate, however, even assuming that the prosecutor's comments were objectionable. The testimony of the victim was convincingly substantiated by the fact that her critical identification of the distinctive nature of the items taken from her pocketbook had been given to the police before the capture of the defendant with these items in his possession. Her statement to the police was made available to defense counsel under the Jencks Act. He did not discredit her on cross-examination. The other key witness for the Government likewise gave convincing testimony. It is hard to suppose that the credit given to their testimony was attributable in significant measure to the reference made by the prosecutor in his summation. In the circumstances we do not find prejudicial error.

Affirmed.