Albert Chapa was convicted of the malice murder of Charlie Hendrix. He appeals the denial of his motion for new trial1 challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting error over alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and the failure to give a charge on voluntary manslaughter. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the victim was alive when his brother visited him the evening of November 23, 2001 but was found dead in his living room by his brother-in-law and son the next morning. The victim had been severely beaten, stabbed repeatedly and died as the result of massive bleeding after his throat was cut. Although appellant told an investigator that he had never been inside the victim’s home and had sustained no injury around the time of the murder that would have enabled someone to obtain his blood, expert testimony established as appellant’s the blood that was found on numerous items inside the home, including a broken knife blade in the living room and the pockets of a pair of blue jeans in the bedroom, as well as on the inside frame of a door in the house and on the front steps leading to the house. Witness Juan Ledesma testified that, on the day in issue, he gave appellant a ride to the victim’s home because appellant wanted to borrow money from the victim; when appellant returned from the victim’s home he had blood on his legs and front and was carrying his shirt in his hands. Two jailhouse informants testified to conversations in which appellant said that he could not have left blood on the door jamb of the house because he was “smarter than that” and that he had cut the victim’s throat in an argument over money.
Appellant contends that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that someone other than appellant committed the murder based on the lack of evidence that appellant’s blood was deposited in the house at the time of the murder and asserting the jury could not reasonably have found the testimony of Ledesma and the jailhouse informants to be credible. Questions as to reasonableness are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, the appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilty is unsupportable as a matter of law. It is the role of the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the resolution of such conflicts adversely to the defendant does not render the evidence insufficient. Citations and punctuation omitted. Brooks v. State , 281 Ga. 514, 515-516 1 640 SE2d 280 2007. The jury “was authorized to reject as unreasonable possibilities which were only theoretical, as that now offered by appellant. Cit.” Treadwell v. State , 285 Ga. 736, 743 4 684 SE2d 244 2009.
