Following a jury trial, Everett F. Lee, Sr. appeals his conviction for felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,1 contending that the trial court erred by failing to properly charge the jury on identity. Lee also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. 1. In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, on October 11, 1999, Lee was using drugs with Larry Clark in an apartment where Santresia Fountain was also staying. Lee and Clark argued, and Fountain witnessed Lee shoot Clark twice, killing him. Fountain then tried to escape, but Lee followed her and shot her as well. Fountain survived, but she is paralyzed from the collarbone down. Fountain positively identified Lee as the man who shot her and Clark, and two other witnesses testified that they saw Lee go into the apartment in question, they then heard gunshots, and they saw Lee running out of the apartment. One of these witnesses testified that she heard Lee say that he had killed the victims as he ran away. This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to determine that Lee was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Lee contends that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury, sua sponte, that the State was required to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Lee argues that identification was his sole defense at trial, and the trial court had a duty, even without request, to give the jury a separate instruction on this concept. ” ‘There is, however, no requirement of our law that a trial judge warn the jury against the possible dangers of mistaken identification of an accused as the person committing a crime.’ ” Weems v. State , 268 Ga. 515, 517 5 491 SE2d 325 1997. See also Young v. State , 226 Ga. 553 7 176 SE2d 52 1970; Micheli v. State , 222 Ga. 361 149 SE2d 803 1966. Even where identification is the sole defense, it is not error for the court to fail to give an unrequested charge on misidentification where the charge as a whole correctly and thoroughly instructs the jury on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses, and impeachment of witnesses. Clay v. State , 232 Ga. App. 656, 658 2 503 SE2d 560 1998. Springs v. Seese , 274 Ga. 659, 662 3 n. 4 558 SE2d 710 2002. Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury on all of these factors. Accordingly, the trial court did not err.
