Following a jury trial, Lafredrick Griffith appeals his convictions of burglary1 and criminal trespass2 1 on general grounds, and contending that the trial court erred in the following ways: 2 by transferring the case to another judge without a hearing, 3 by failing to excuse a juror with a first-offender status for theft by receiving stolen property, 4 by failing to rule on a hearsay objection, 5 by asking questions of a witness, 6 by sustaining a hearsay objection based on a statement’s self-serving nature, 7 by failing to charge on mere presence and mistake of fact, 8 by responding to the jury’s questions by providing the jury with written copies of the jury instructions, 9 by considering Griffith’s pending charges during sentencing, 10 by failing to grant Griffith’s motion for new trial based on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and 11 by failing to make findings as to the effectiveness of trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is set out in Jackson v. Virginia .3 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. In addition, appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. An appellate court determines only the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced below and does not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Punctuation omitted. Taylor v. State .4 So viewed, the evidence shows that at approximately 8:30 a. m., while Farley Richmond was home recuperating from surgery, Richmond was awakened by his dog barking “wildly.” Upon investigating, Richmond saw Griffith, whom he did not know, in his back yard, which was surrounded by a brick wall. Richmond watched from his house as Griffith looked into Richmond’s garage windows. Richmond then briefly lost sight of Griffith, who reappeared in the neighbor’s back yard, having climbed the wall. Richmond called the police, who responded and discovered Griffith on the back porch of the neighbor’s house. After investigating, police discovered that drawers in the neighbor’s house had been opened, and that, in Richmond’s house, the screen on the back porch door had been slit and a back window opened.
After both Richmond and the neighbor confirmed that Griffith was a stranger and did not have permission to enter their homes, Griffith was arrested and charged with two counts of burglary. A jury trial resulted in his conviction on one count of burglary the neighbor’s house and one count of criminal trespass Richmond’s house. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Griffith appeals.
