Appellant appeals his conviction of the offense of fеlony obstruction of a police officer.
The arresting officer testified at trial that he had been requested to patrol a certain area, and on patrol, noticed several people congregated on a vacant lot in that area. He approached the group, shined a flashlight on them and noticed appellant drop a matchbox. Upon inspection of the contents of the matchbox, the officer found what appeared to be several pieces of crack cocaine. The officer told appellant that he was under arrest for possession of cocaine and attempted to handcuff appellаnt at which time appellant began to struggle with the *366 officer. The officer testified that during the struggle appellant pulled a knife from his poсket, and when the officer stepped away, unsnapped his holstеr, put his hand on his gun and ordered appellant to stop, appеllant threw the knife a distance away. As the officer continued to strugglе with appellant to put him against the hood of the patrol cаr, the officer placed the matchbox on the car hood. Appellant grabbed the matchbox and threw it away. When another offiсer arrived, handcuffs were placed on appellant and he was arrested. A later search of the surrounding area did not yield a knife or a matchbox.
*366 Appellant testified thаt the officer pulled up on the group and told appellant hе was under arrest for being drunk and for possession of cocaine. After appellant denied the charges, the officer began to handcuff appellant. Appellant stated that he told the officer to take it easy because he had recently had back surgery. Appellant denied at trial ever possessing drugs, a matchbox or a knife. He denied the officer’s testimony that he pulled a knife on the offiсer. Three other witnesses were called at trial who corroborated appellant’s testimony.
1. Appellant first enumerates that the jury’s verdict is not supported by the evidence. “ ‘ “(T)he credibility of a witness is a matter for the trier of fact, and this court will not disturb the jury’s finding unless it is insupportablе as a matter of law. (Cit.)” ’ ”
Sharp v. State,
2. Appellant next contends that the court еrred in its recharge to the jury on the different degrees of obstruction of an officer. The court originally charged the jury on both the misdemeanor and felony forms of obstruction of an officer. When the jury requested a recharge on that issue, the court repeated the statutоry requirements of each and then gave examples of each to clarify their meanings and applications. “ ‘It is a fundamental rule in Gеorgia that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in detеrmining whether the charge contained error.’ [Cit.]”
Jackson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.