Appellant Robert Spickler appeals his convictions for murder and armed robbery.1 He claims numerous errors were committed by the trial court in both jury selection and at trial. Having reviewed the record and the transcript, we find that no reversible errors occurred. Therefore, we affirm. The evidence introduced at trial showed that in November 1997, while attending a convention in Nevada, the victim, Bruce Bellville, met and socialized with appellant, who was living in Nevada at that time. Before returning home to Georgia, the victim gave appellant his phone number and said to contact him if he was ever in the state. In April 1998, while driving to Florida, appellant and his accomplice, Zellmer, stopped in Georgia and called the victim. The victim invited them to his home, where the trio had drinks before going to a bar frequented by the victim. Upon returning to the victim’s home in the early morning hours, the victim showed appellant and Zellmer to a guest room, then went to bed himself. Appellant then found a small sledgehammer in the home, went into the victim’s bedroom, and hit the victim in the head seven times as he lay in bed, killing him. Appellant and Zellmer took credit cards, electronics and personal items from the victim’s home, then fled the state, throwing the sledgehammer by the roadside along the way. They used the victim’s credit card to make purchases and were apprehended out of state. The victim’s personal property was found in appellant’s car. At trial, appellant admitted killing the victim, but claimed he did so because the victim made an unwanted sexual advance toward him. The State sought the death penalty in prosecuting appellant, and the jury recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
1. As the arbiter of credibility, the jury was neither required to believe appellant’s claim that a sexual advance provoked him to attack the victim nor to credit appellant’s denial of premeditation or intent.2 “Criminal intent may be found by the jury ‘upon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted.”3 Construed most favorably to the jury’s verdict, the evidence adduced at trial —that appellant bludgeoned the victim to death, stole his property and fled the state —was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the offenses of which he was convicted.4
