After a jury trial, Travis R. Millsaps was convicted of one count of violating the Computer or Electronic Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 2007 by utilizing the internet to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child or another person believed by such person to be a child to commit an illegal sex act;1 attempted aggravated child molestation;2 and attempted child molestation.3 Millsaps appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by 1 denying his motion to exclude custodial statements based on improper hope of benefit in violation of OCGA §24-3-50; 2 denying his request to instruct the jury on the definition of incitement in the context of entrapment; and 3 denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal based on entrapment. Millsaps also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because 4 he requested that the jury be instructed to consider a witness’ intelligence when determining credibility; and 5 he failed to object to the trial court’s instruction on excluding statements based on an illegal detention. We affirm for the reasons that follow. On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant . . . no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia .4 Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. 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.5 So viewed, the evidence presented at trial established that on July 31, 2008, an officer with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force operating in north Georgia posted an advertisement in the “Casual Encounters” section of Craig’s List, a website that functions similarly to a newspaper classified advertisement section. The advertisement appeared to be from an 18-year-old female, “Hannah,” looking for a man with whom to “end . . . Summer Vacation with a Bang.” On August 5, 2008, Millsaps emailed a response to the ad. The officer posing as the female named Hannah responded to Millsaps’s email, telling him “like I said, I’m very mature and interested. Just wanted to let you know up front I’m not quite 18″ and sending pictures of a 13-year-old female from an FBI database. The two began corresponding via instant messenger, where “Hannah” explained that she was actually 14 years old. Although Millsaps expressed hesitation at “Hannah’s” young age, they continued to communicate, discussed meeting in person, and discussed having sexual intercourse and oral sex. On August 8, Millsaps had a telephone conversation with another task force agent, with whom he discussed plans to meet in person.
Upon arriving at the location, Millsaps was apprehended and interviewed by officers, to whom he admitted he had intended to meet with “Hannah,” had brought condoms with him, and might have had sex with her, as they had previously discussed.
