Jessica Nicole McFarlin, Seneca Terry Darns, and Kimberly Christian Ramsey were indicted by a Bartow County grand jury on two counts of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.1 The defendants were jointly tried before a jury and each found guilty of one count of aggravated assault; the other two counts were mistried due to the jury’s failure to agree upon a verdict. McFarlin’s amended motion for new trial was denied, and she appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. McFarlin first asserts the general grounds. Construed in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence shows that the victim was smoking crack cocaine in a motel room when McFarlin came in and ordered the victim to “get out of here.” When the victim failed to obey immediately, McFarlin “hollered” and began “screaming that the victim was the police; that I was wired.” She also attempted to pull up the victim’s shirt to see if she was wearing a recording device. As suddenly as she had entered the room, McFarlin broke off her attack and left the room, returning shortly afterwards with a completely changed demeanor. Calling the victim “sweetie,” she took her purse and persuaded her to leave the room and enter a vehicle with McFarlin and the other two defendants. They drove down a dirt road in a remote area to an abandoned house, where the victim was attacked and stabbed numerous times about the head and neck. When Darns began shooting at the victim, she fled and managed to escape to a nearby home. The victim positively identified McFarlin in the courtroom. McFarlin herself admitted to the police investigator and in the courtroom that she was in the car but insisted she was an innocent bystander and had no idea that the victim would be attacked. An appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence to convict is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Conflicting testimony is a matter of credibility for the jury to resolve. As long as some competent evidence exists, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, we will uphold the jury’s verdict. Citations and punctuation omitted. Wheeler v. State , 236 Ga. App. 197, 198 1 511 SE2d 564 1999. While McFarlin argues that she was merely present at the scene, the jury was instructed on mere presence and parties to a crime and evidence was presented that McFarlin was the individual who first confronted the victim and accused her of being a police informant, then suddenly appeared to befriend her and persuaded her to go from the relative safety of the motel room to the remote location where she was assaulted. “Criminal intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Hanifa v. State , 269 Ga. 797, 809 8 505 SE2d 731 1998. Construed in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence was sufficient under the standard of Jackson , supra.
2. McFarlin next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow McFarlin to open and close final arguments as directed by OCGA § 17-8-71. We first note that McFarlin failed to interpose a proper and timely objection and therefore has waived the right to assert this enumeration of error on appeal. Williams v. State , 236 Ga. App. 351, 355 2 511 SE2d 910 1999. But even if the objection were properly preserved, McFarlin’s contention is without merit because McFarlin’s co-defendants cross-examined a witness regarding the contents of hospital records and toxicology reports on the victim, and the witness read portions of the reports into evidence. Although neither document was formally admitted into evidence, portions of the contents of both defense exhibits were presented to the jury, that is, they were introduced into evidence. Presenting the documents’ contents to the jury was the equivalent of a formal tender of evidence divesting McFarlin of the right to open and close final arguments. Citations and punctuation omitted. Aldridge v. State , 237 Ga. App. 209, 214 6 515 SE2d 397 1999.2 “The right of a defendant introducing no evidence at trial to open and close is not absolute. If one defendant offers evidence in the trial of co-defendants, the right to make the closing argument is lost to all defendants, even those introducing no evidence.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Williams , supra at 355 2.
