A Jeff Davis County jury found Vallorinzo Hill guilty of sale of cocaine, which charge arose when Hill sold a confidential informant “CI” $60 worth of crack cocaine on Plum Street in Hazelhurst. He appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape of the sale; that the court erred in admitting into evidence Hill’s statement to the police; that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; and that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment. We have reviewed these contentions and find them meritless. Accordingly, we affirm Hill’s conviction. 1. There was no error in the admission of the videotape of the drug sale. The CI testified at trial as an authenticating witness and stated that the tape fairly and accurately depicted the sale as it occurred on the incident date.1 In light of testimony that the video portion of the tape was “perfect,” the fact that the audio portion was not working would not effect the tape’s admissibility.2
2. We likewise find no error in the admission of Hill’s confession to the instant offense. The interviewing agent testified that Hill’s statement was freely and voluntarily made without promises or threats and after full advisement of Miranda 3 rights; that Hill was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and appeared to understand what he was doing; that, after Hill had already given his statement, the agent asked him to become a CI; and that such request was the agent’s normal procedure, “because in narcotics investigations you have to seek information where you can.” While Hill testified that, before he gave his statement, the agent “promised” to drop the charges in exchange for Hill’s working as a CI, such testimony merely presented a factual conflict for the trier of fact to resolve. In that regard, unless clearly erroneous, a trial court’s findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of the defendant’s statement at a Jackson-Denno hearing will be upheld on appeal. Cit.”4 In this case, the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Hill’s statement was freely and voluntarily made and, thus, admissible under the criteria of Jackson v. Denno .5 As such, the admission of Hill’s statement was not clearly erroneous.
