Charles Frank McMorris, Jr. McMorris appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial following his conviction by a jury of rape and aggravated sodomy, contending that trial counsel was ineffective; two evidentiary rulings by the trial court were incorrect; and the evidence was legally insufficient. For the reasons set out herein, we affirm. 1. We consider first the fourth enumeration of error regarding sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and McMorris no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. The standard for reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is whether under the rule of Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Moreover, the test established in Jackson is the proper test for us to use when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, whether the challenge arises from the overruling of a motion for directed verdict or the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence. Citations and punctuation omitted. Lester v. State , 226 Ga. App. 373, 376 2 487 SE2d 25 1997.
Viewed with all inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence was that McMorris met the victim, S. H., at Olympic Centennial Park. S. H. was receiving Social Security disability payments following what she described as a nervous breakdown.1 She had previously been hospitalized at Georgia Regional Hospital and had ceased taking her prescribed medication because it made her feel “like a mummy.” When she met McMorris, she was living at the Salvation Army shelter.
