A DeKalb County jury found Herbert Hector guilty of being a party to the crime of robbery by intimidation, which charge arose when Hector’s accomplice entered the First Union Bank at South DeKalb Mall carrying a brief case containing a phony “bomb” made of door knobs and other debris; after handing the teller a note demanding money and stating that he was in possession of C4 explosives which would “kill us all,” the accomplice absconded with approximately $7,000. The jury acquitted Hector of an additional count of armed robbery. He now appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court gave a coercive charge to the jury. Finding no basis for reversal, we affirm. 1. Hector first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him. When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.1 This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence . . . ‘resolving evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies, and assessing witness credibility, are the province of the factfinder, not this Court.’ Cit.”2 Here, two of Hector’s accomplices testified at trial. Both stated that Hector was instrumental in planning the robbery; that Hector made the phony bomb using articles taken from an abandoned apartment; and that Hector wrote the note threatening to “kill us all” with C4 explosives. In addition, the teller included a red dye pack with the money she turned over during the robbery, and Hector was found in an apartment where money stained with red dye was located. Construing this evidence most strongly in support of the jury’s verdict and recognizing both that “the testimony of each accomplice was corroborative of the testimony of the other”3 and that Hector was found in close proximity to money taken during the robbery, we find the evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Hector guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to the crime of robbery by intimidation.4
2. Hector next claims the trial court gave an Allen-type charge that coerced the verdict in this case. We disagree.
