Following a jury trial, Grady Attaway and Moises Martinez “defendants” appeal their multiple convictions in these related cases regarding a crime spree occurring over several days.1 Attaway appeals his convictions for kidnaping, burglary, armed robbery, terroristic threats, hijacking a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, theft by taking, theft by receiving stolen property, driving without a license, fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer, and driving on the wrong side of the road. Martinez appeals his convictions for kidnaping, burglary, armed robbery, terroristic threats, hijacking a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, financial transaction card fraud, theft by taking, and theft by receiving stolen property. Collectively, Attaway and Martinez contend that: 1 the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; 2 their trials should have been severed; 3 a shotgun used during the crime spree was improperly admitted into evidence; 4 photographic lineups were admitted into evidence without a proper foundation; 5 an incriminating statement made by Attaway after his arrest was improperly admitted; and 6 a mistrial should have been declared due to certain jury misconduct. In addition to these collective enumerations, Martinez, individually, also contends that: 7 his character was improperly placed into evidence; 8 certain exhibits offered by the State were admitted without a proper foundation; and 9 a statement made by Martinez to police was improperly admitted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1. The defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts against them. We disagree. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and the appellants . . . no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia. 2 . . . As long as there is some competent evidence . . . to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld. Citations and punctuation omitted. Grier v. State. 3
Viewing the evidence in this light, the record shows that defendants were involved in a crime spree over several days in November 1999. Each of the acts involved in this criminal spree will be considered separately.
