Peterson, Justice. Nathan Mims appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime for stabbing his ex-girlfriend, Naty Ortiz-Ramos, to death.[1] His sole enumeration of error is that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the evidence showed that he could not control himself and thus was not responsible for the killing. But the jury was not required to believe his explanation of Ortiz-Ramos’s killing; the evidence was sufficient to convict him, so we affirm. The evidence taken in the light most favorable to the verdict showed the following. Mims physically and emotionally abused Ortiz-Ramos over the course of their relationship, which began in 2011. After Ortiz-Ramos broke up with Mims in March 2014, he threatened to kill her. On April 27, 2014, Mims visited Ortiz-Ramos in her Richmond County apartment. After falling asleep that night, Ortiz-Ramos’s roommate awoke to Ortiz-Ramos’s screams for help. The roommate found Ortiz-Ramos lying on the floor with Mims straddled on top of her, punching her in the face. Ortiz-Ramos was barely conscious, looked like a rag doll, and was moaning. The roommate retrieved a cell phone, called 911, and when she returned, saw Mims stabbing Ortiz-Ramos with a knife. Responding law enforcement officers were unable to resuscitate Ortiz-Ramos. She had been stabbed 37 times, including one stab that punctured the front of her heart, and one that punctured her left lung. Mims, who was still at Ortiz-Ramos’s apartment when sheriffs deputies arrived, admitted stabbing her and acknowledged that he did not need to stab her to defend himself, that he continued to hit and stab her even after she was incapacitated, that Ortiz-Ramos’s roommate and children asked him to stop, and that he could have and should have left. At trial, Mims testified that on the night Ortiz-Ramos died, she “went into a rage” and came at him with a knife. He claimed that he “panicked” and “went into an unconscious state of fear” and that he did not stab her intentionally but rather out of “instinct” and “panic” and because he feared for his life. Mims’s sole enumeration of error is that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. In support of that claim, he relies on his testimony that he was not in control of his actions when he beat and stabbed Ortiz-Ramos to death. He contends that he should not stand convicted for a crime that he could not stop himself from committing.[2] We evaluate the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of federal due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). In conducting that evaluation, “[i]t is not the job of this Court to weigh the evidence on appeal or resolve conflicts in trial testimony but rather to examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict[.]“ Browder v. State, 294 Ga. 188, 191 (1) (751 SE2d 354) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). A rational trier of fact could have rejected Mims’s assertion that he was not in control of his own actions, as well as any associated claims that he was acting in self-defense or with an irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation. See Corley v. State, 308 Ga. 321, 322 (1) (a) (840 SE2d 391) (2020) (“[Q]uestions about the existence of justification are for a jury to decide [.]“); Anderson v. State, 248 Ga. 682, 683 (3) (285 SE2d 533) (1982) (“Whether or not a provocation, if any, is such a serious provocation as would be sufficient to excite a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion in a reasonable person, reducing the offense from murder to manslaughter, is generally a question for the jury.”).[3] And the defendant’s testimony, in which he claimed he was justified or provoked into acting, may itself be considered substantive evidence of guilt when disbelieved by the jury, as long as some corroborative evidence exists for the charged offense. See Daughtie v. State, 297 Ga. 261, 263-264 (2) (773 SE2d 263) (2015). Mims does not dispute that he killed Ortiz-Ramos, and the jury was not required to believe his explanation as to his culpability. The evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support Mims’s convictions. We affirm. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
