Appellant Davon Rogae Johnson was convicted of malice murder, burglary, robbery by force and theft by taking in connection with the strangulation death of Karen Williams in Fulton County.1 He appeals the judgment of conviction on the ground that the trial court committed reversible error in giving a jury instruction on possession of recently stolen goods. We disagree with appellant’s contention and affirm the judgment of conviction. 1. The victim was found strangled to death by an electrical cord in her Atlanta apartment on November 25,1998. Investigating officers found no evidence of forced entry and discovered the victim’s car keys were missing and her car had been removed from the complex. Appellant Davon Johnson had moved from Charleston, South Carolina, into a friend’s apartment located below that of the victim 12 days before she was found dead. Evidence adduced at trial showed the last telephone call received by the victim in her apartment was made from the apartment where appellant was staying at a time when he was the only person in the apartment. The victim’s car was recovered in Charleston the day after the victim’s body was found, and DNA found on cigarette butts in the vehicle matched appellant’s DNA. The victim’s cell phone records indicated that numerous calls originating in Charleston had been made from the phone after the victim’s death. Appellant admitted to police he had stolen Ms. William’s vehicle on November 24 to return to Charleston and had used the cell phone he found inside the vehicle, but denied killing the victim. However, a witness testified appellant repeatedly had told him, “I killed that bitch;” another witness, a long-time friend of appellant, testified that after he questioned appellant about how appellant had obtained the car, appellant responded that he had been searching through the victim’s house, she had threatened to call the police, and he “didn’t leave a witness.” The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they could infer appellant’s guilt of robbery or auto theft from appellant’s recent possession of the stolen car keys unless there had been presented a reasonable explanation of the recent possession of the stolen goods.2 Appellant argues the trial court unduly emphasized the importance of his possession of the victim’s keys in violation of Renner v. State , 260 Ga. 515 3b 397 SE2d 683 1990. In Renner , this Court ruled that it is error for a trial court to charge the jury on flight in a criminal case since such a charge identifies and explains the possible consequences of one circumstance and not others, and could be interpreted by the jury as an intimation of opinion by the court that there is evidence of flight and that the circumstances of flight imply the guilt of the defendant. Appellant contends that the rationale of Renner is equally applicable to the jury instruction concerning the inference that can be drawn from a defendant’s recent possession of stolen property. In Renner , this Court set forth that it is reversible error for a court to charge the jury on the specific issue of flight . Renner has not been applied to cases involving anything other than flight. See, e.g., Hall v. State , 261 Ga. App. 64 581 SE2d 695 2003 Renner rationale not applicable to jury charge on testifying defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case as a matter for jury consideration in determining defendant’s credibility; Dukes v. State , 256 Ga. App. 236 2 568 SE2d 151 2002 Renner rationale inapposite to jury charge given on excessive force without an accompanying charge on duty to retreat; Carroll v. State, 252 Ga. App. 142 2 555 SE2d 807 2001 rejecting the argument that a jury instruction on conduits and procuring agents “unnecessarily particularized the general charge on parties to a crime and could have been interpreted by the jury as an intimation of opinion by the court.” But see Harris v. State , 273 Ga. 608 2 543 SE2d 716 2001, where, without citing Renner , this Court held that it is error to instruct the jury that it may infer intent to kill from the defendant’s use of a deadly weapon. We decline the opportunity to expand the holding in Renner beyond the issue of flight.
