Hamilton v. State

The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that he acted in self-defense, even though the victim pointed a gun at his accomplice, since that confrontation ended, the victim and the defendant went their separate ways, and the defendant shot the victim later when the victim was unarmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Thomas Hamilton was convicted of aggravated assault. In his sole enumeration of error, he claims the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury because the evidence was insufficient to authorize a conviction. Specifically, he urges that the state failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense, given his testimony that he shot the victim only after the victim and the victim’s companion pointed a gun at him. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, we affirm.

On appeal, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to support the verdict, and an appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, we determine the sufficiency of the evidence and do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Grant v. State, 239 Ga. App. 608, 609 1 521 SE2d 654 1999. We review a denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal under the standards set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 1979, and determine whether 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. Id. As long as there is some competent evidence on each element necessary to prove the state’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld. Jackson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 260, 261 511 SE2d 615 1999; see Knight v. State, 239 Ga. App. 710, 713 2 521 SE2d 654 1999. Conflicts in the witnesses’ testimony are for a jury to resolve. Jackson, supra.

Hamilton v. State

The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that he acted in self-defense, even though the victim pointed a gun at his accomplice, since that confrontation ended, the victim and the defendant went their separate ways, and the defendant shot the victim later when the victim was unarmed.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report