In 1985, Charles Boyd was fatally stabbed in an altercation with three passengers in his car. Antony Hill and Willie Terrell were convicted of murder, and the convictions and life sentences were affirmed on appeal. Terrell v. State , 258 Ga. 722 373 SE2d 751 1988. Attempts to identify the third participant in the homicide were unsuccessful until 1994, when a previously unmatched print lifted from the victim’s automobile was shown to be that of “Demetrius Jones,” an alias that the State contends was used by Appellant Gregory Roebuck. Thereafter, Hill gave a statement, in which he exonerated Terrell and implicated Appellant and Adrian Smith as the other two passengers in Mr. Boyd’s car. Eventually, the trial court granted an extraordinary motion for new trial filed by Terrell, and the State dropped the murder charge against him. Smith was never charged with the crime because he died in an unrelated shooting. In 1999, Appellant was indicted for killing Mr. Boyd. A jury found him guilty of malice murder, and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant brings this appeal.1 1. Hill testified as a witness for the prosecution. To authorize Appellant’s conviction, the State was required to produce at least slight evidence to corroborate Hill’s identification of him as one of the three participants in the crime. Chergi v. State , 234 Ga. App. 548, 550 4 507 SE2d 795 1998. Appellant urges that it failed to do so.
An expert witness testified that he matched a print lifted from the victim’s vehicle with the print of an individual identified as Gregory Roebuck. According to Appellant, the latter print was never shown to be his. However, ” ‘concordance of name alone is some evidence of identity. Identity of name presumptively imports identity of person, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.’ Cit.” Gibson v. State , 243 Ga. App. 610, 612 2 b 533 SE2d 783 2000. The defense never disputed that Appellant was the individual whose print was matched by the expert, and thereby impliedly conceded that he was that person. See Lewis v. State , 234 Ga. App. 873, 877 4 508 SE2d 218 1998. He relies upon the fact that, at one point, the witness indicated that the name of the individual “ appears to be Gregory Roebuck, R-O-E I think it’s T-U-C-K or H. I can’t read my writing there.” However, this small equivocation is immaterial, since the witness on every other occasion identified the matching print as belonging to a person named Roebuck. Resolving evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies is the province of the fact-finder. Hampton v. State , 272 Ga. 284, 285 1 527 SE2d 872 2000. Moreover, the print card was admitted into evidence without objection, and the jury could determine for itself whether it was labeled with the name “Gregory Roebuck.” See California Ins. Co. v. Blumburg , 101 Ga. App. 587, 591 2 115 SE2d 266 1960 proper reading of an obscurely written word is for the jury. Under the circumstances, the uncontested testimony of the expert shows that he matched a print lifted from Mr. Boyd’s automobile to Appellant’s print. See Hardrick v. State , 96 Ga. App. 670, 672 4 101 SE2d 99 1957.
