Following a jury trial, Malcom Reed was found guilty of felony murder.1 On appeal, Reed contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred with respect to its jury charge on felony murder and with respect to certain evidentiary matters, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm. 1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence reveals that, on April 20, 2007, while Reed was sitting in the passenger seat of a Lincoln Navigator, he shot and killed Marcus Eiland. An eyewitness, Virginia Brown Sears, saw that the shots that killed Eiland came from inside the Navigator as Eiland was riding away on a bicycle. Brian Copeland was later identified as the driver of the Navigator, and Copeland led police to the .45 caliber pistol used to shoot Eiland. Copeland gave a statement to police implicating Reed as the shooter. Reed was arrested, and he gave a videotaped statement to police admitting to shooting Eiland. At trial, Reed’s statement was admitted into evidence. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find Reed guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; OCGA § 16-5-21 a 3 aggravated assault by “discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons”; Jackson v. State , 279 Ga. 721 620 SE2d 828 2005 “It is the role of the jury, not this Court, to resolve conflicts in the evidence” footnote omitted.
2. Reed argues that the trial court erred in allowing Copeland to selectively invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during direct and cross-examination. However, the record reveals that Reed never objected to Copeland asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege during his testimony. He has therefore waived review of this issue on appeal. Hoerner v. State , 246 Ga. 374 3 271 SE2d 458 1980.