A Walker County jury found Jamie Williamson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, OCGA § 16-6-1 a 1; two counts of statutory rape, OCGA § 16-6-3 a; one count of aggravated sexual battery, OCGA § 16-6-22.2 b; three counts of aggravated sodomy, OCGA § 16-6-2 a 2; eight counts of child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 a 1; and two counts of aggravated child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 c.1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Williamson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, arguing that the victims’ testimony was not corroborated by other evidence, that their testimony was inconsistent with their previous statements and with the testimony of other witnesses, and that the State failed to present any physical evidence to prove that he committed the crimes.
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her conviction, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Citation omitted; emphasis in original. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 III B 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. It is the function of the jury, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id. “As long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Miller v. State , 273 Ga. 831, 832 546 SE2d 524 2001. Viewed in this light, the record reveals the following facts.
