Laster v. State

The 87-year-old victim and the defendant, who lived with the victim free of charge in return for yard and maintenance work, got into an argument, the defendant grabbed her arm with both hands and injured her forearm by twisting it, and the defendant poured bleach on her mattress and threatened to burn her house down.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Floyd County jury found James Laster guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of family violence battery, OCGA § 16-5-23.1; criminal trespass, OCGA § 16-7-21; and abuse of an elder person, OCGA § 30-5-8. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, and, for the following reasons, we affirm. 1. Laster contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, pointing to the elderly victim’s testimony that, while Laster caused her injuries, he did it accidentally, not intentionally. 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.

In 2008 or 2009, 48-year-old Laster moved into the home of the victim, an 87-year-old widow who was not related to Laster, but who allowed him to live there free of charge in return for yard and maintenance work. The victim’s daughter and neighbors testified, however, that they rarely saw Laster do any work around the victim’s home. One of the neighbors testified that, instead, Laster often sat on the victim’s front porch drinking alcohol. The victim, whose only income was Social Security benefits, admitted that she regularly gave Laster money to buy food, cigarettes, and alcohol.

Laster v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report