A Fulton County jury found Anthony Jerome Johnson guilty of burglary, OCGA § 16-7-1. Johnson appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the court erred in admitting similar transaction evidence and in giving certain jury charges. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the record shows that at about 4:00 a.m. on June 19, 2007, Johnson was caught dragging about 30 feet of heavy-duty copper cable through an unlighted apartment building that was under construction. A security guard, who was alerted to Johnson’s presence by the sounds of sawing and chopping, shined a flashlight in Johnson’s face and asked him what he was doing in the building. Johnson told the guard that he worked there, but the guard testified that nobody started work that early and that Johnson had no authority to be there. Johnson fled and the guard chased him, never losing sight of him and catching him a short distance away. The guard identified Johnson in court as the burglar. Johnson testified that he did not commit a burglary, that he never entered the building in question, and that he happened to be on the street that morning because he wanted to be first in line when a nearby church began serving a free breakfast. The State also introduced similar transaction evidence showing that at about 11:00 p.m. on August 12, 1999, Johnson was caught removing copper pipe from a building that was under construction. The State introduced certified copies of Johnson’s conviction for that burglary.
1. Johnson contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury as follows: “The testimony of a single witness, if believed, is generally sufficient to establish a fact.” Johnson further contends the court should have given his request to charge, which authorized the jury to disregard testimony it found unworthy of belief. The court’s charge on the testimony of a single witness was an accurate statement of the law and was adjusted to the facts of this case. OCGA § 24-4-8; Shuman v. State , 244 Ga. App. 335, 336 2 535 SE2d 526 2000. Further, the court’s pattern charge covered the principles Johnson sought to have covered in his request to charge by explaining that it is for the jury to determine whether a witness is to be believed. Because a trial court is not required to instruct the jury in the exact language of a requested charge, especially when the principle of law is covered in another charge, we find no error. Wallace v. State , 277 Ga. App. 280, 281 2 626 SE2d 229 2006.
