Appellant Demetrius Hooks was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon arising out of the shooting death of Xavier Ballard.1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. The evidence at trial established that Ballard lived next door to appellant’s girlfriend, Jessica Robinson. Prior to the shooting, appellant had discussed his scheme to rob and kill Ballard with an acquaintance, Germaine Gresham. On the day of the shooting, Ballard invited appellant to accompany him on a drug sale. As Ballard drove, appellant fatally shot him causing the car to veer off of the road and hit a tree. The police found Ballard in the driver’s seat of his vehicle with a single, close-range gunshot wound to the head. The back pocket of Ballard’s cargo pants had been ripped open, and his blood-soaked wallet was strewn on the center console. After the shooting, appellant returned to Robinson’s home where he changed his clothes and hid the blue jogging suit he had been wearing in Robinson’s closet. Eyewitnesses to the incident told police that they observed only one individual dressed in a blue jogging suit at the scene and that they saw the individual “tuck something” under his shirt as he fled. Later that evening Gresham saw appellant in possession of a semi-automatic handgun as appellant disclosed to him that he had robbed and “dome called”2 Ballard. Forensic testing of the apparel recovered from Robinson’s closet revealed that the clothing was spattered with Ballard’s blood. Appellant acknowledged he was with the victim at the time of the incident, but claimed an unknown assailant perpetrated the shooting. Nine months after the incident the police recovered a .380 caliber Lorcin semi-automatic pistol hidden in some cinder blocks on Robinson’s property. Although police could not make a conclusive determination as to whether the shell casings found inside Ballard’s vehicle matched that particular weapon, ballistic evidence determined that the shell casings had been discharged from a .380 caliber weapon.
Appellant alleges the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the evidence was entirely circumstantial. To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than the defendant’s guilt. OCGA § 24-4-6; Smith v. State , 257 Ga. 381, 382 359 SE2d 662 1987. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
