Williams v. State

The victim's identification of the defendant and her testimony sufficiently corroborated his co-defendant's identification testimony implicating the defendant of the crimes.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Clayton County jury found Christopher Eugene Williams guilty of burglary, OCGA § 16-7-1 a; kidnapping, OCGA § 16-5-40 a; armed robbery, OCGA § 16-8-41 a; rape, OCGA § 16-6-1; possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, OCGA § 16-11-106 b 1; two counts of aggravated assault, OCGA § 16-5-21 a; and false imprisonment, OCGA § 16-5-41 a. Williams appeals from the judgment of conviction, raising the general grounds and contending the court erred in failing to merge several of his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in two respects. First, he contends that the evidence adduced is insufficient to convict him of any of the crimes charged because the identification testimony of his accomplice, Heyward, was not sufficiently corroborated. Second, he contends the evidence adduced on the armed robbery charge was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

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, 318-319 III B 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. The jury, not this Court, resolves conflicts in the testimony, weighs the evidence, and draws reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. 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.

Williams v. State

The victim's identification of the defendant and her testimony sufficiently corroborated his co-defendant's identification testimony implicating the defendant of the crimes.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report