Corbett v. State

James Carroll Corbett, convicted by a jury of vehicular homicide by driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1,1 appeals following denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient and that he received inadequate assistance of counsel. 1. Corbett, in his second and third enumerations of error, argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on Counts 2 and 4 and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on all counts.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Paul v. State , 231 Ga. App. 528 499 SE2d 914 1998. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determine whether the evidence is sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. The standard for reviewing both a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is that the verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , supra; Williams v. State , 233 Ga. App. 217 1 504 SE2d 53 1998.