Rоbert Lee Campbell appeals his judgment of conviction of burglary and his sentence. Held:
1. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of burglary, pаrticularly as it was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. We disagree.
The vice-president of a trucking company and the operations officer of the Berth Company left the premises to obtain some building supplies. On their return they noticed a truck, which had not been parked in the area before they left, parked apprоximately 500 feet from the premises. At the premises they found the door of the office trailer wide open; the window rollers of the trailer had been broken and the door unlocked from thе inside. A medium built, black male, about 5'10" in height who was wearing a light green hooded jacket was observed leaving the trailer. (The jury was able to compare the physical characteristics of appellant with the physical descriptions given by the witnesses.) The area was well-lighted at the time by a street light and their vehicle headlights. The police were called and, about 15 to 25 minutes later, appellant was apprehended a relatively short distance away. The vice-president and manager both made pretrial identifications of appellant, although they could not be positive as to their identifications until appellant put on the coat he was carrying when apprehended. The vice-president explained thаt appellant looked bigger once he put on the jacket. He also made an in-court identification of appellant; no timely objection was posed as to this identification. The vice-president testified during cross-examination that, while he could positively identify the coat, he could not identify appellant until the latter put on the coat. The oрerations manager observed appellant flee from the burglary scene. He too described appellant’s green coat and testified that appellant was wearing bluе *15 pants. The operations manager testified as to the circumstances surrounding his pretrial identification of appellant. When he was returned to the premises after being apprehended, appellant was wearing blue pants. When the operations manager saw appellant in police custody, he believed he was the perpetrator of thе entry in the trailer, but the manager was not positive until appellant actually put on the coat. The manager believed the coat made appellant look heavier; whеn appellant was just in his shirt his face looked skinnier. The manager also made an in-court identification of appellant; no objection was posed to this identification. His pretrial identification was of appellant and not merely of appellant’s coat; his in-court identification was made without hesitation or doubt.
“Flight is circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt” and the weight to be given such evidence is for the jury to decide; the fact that a suspect flees the crime scene points to the question of guilt in a circumstantial manner.
Green v. State,
On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.
Grant v. State,
2. Appellant asserts the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence that appellant was charged with another crime, thеreby placing his character into issue. Specifically, appellant objected to testimony that the truck found near the crime scene had been stolen from Newnan, Georgia, and that a bus ticket from LaGrange to Newnan subsequently was found under the mattress in appellant’s jail cell. The trial court concluded that this evidence had some relevance and аdmitted it. During cross-examination, appellant admitted that the bus ticket was his, claiming he had passed through Newnan by bus. The evidence in its totality linked appellant to the truck which had been reсently parked near the crime scene. From this
*16
evidence the jury could reasonably infer that appellant drove in a truck to the crime scene, and that he had access to a means of transporting items from the crime scene. Admissibility of evidence is a matter which rests largely within the discretion of the trial court; unless the potential for prejudice in the admission оf evidence substantially outweighs its probative value, the Georgia rule favors the admission of any relevant evidence, no matter how slight its probative value.
Norman v. State,
3. Appellant contends the trial сourt erred in admitting prejudicial and improper evidence over appellant’s objection; thus, appellant asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the truck was stоlen. This evidence was relevant. See Division 2 above. “It is a cardinal rule of evidence that if evidence is duly admissible under any legitimate theory, it should be admitted even though it does not qualify fоr admission under one or more other evidentiary theories. That is, generally evidence should be admitted if it is admissible for any legitimate purpose.”
Boatright v. State,
4. Appellant asserts his conviction should be reversed because of admission of prosecution witness testimony that previously had been excluded. Specifically, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting his statement, madе in custody and apparently without benefit of a Miranda warning, to the effect that he had driven the truck from Newnan.
The trial court initially sustained appellant’s objection to the incriminating statemеnt and the State did not offer this evidence in its case in chief. Appellant subsequently testified in his own behalf on direct examination that he did not burglarize the trucking company, the charges against him regarding the truck had been dismissed, and he had gotten out of a friend’s car because the driver had been drink
*17
ing too much and he was walking en route to an acquaintance’s house to obtаin a ride when he was apprehended by the police. On cross-examination, appellant was non-responsive to a question whether the truck at the crime scene was the same truck involved in those charges, claiming he had never seen the truck before. Appellant also testified on cross-examination that if Officer Freeman claimed appellant had admitted he had “come in that truck,” Freeman would be lying. Officer Freeman was called by the State as a rebuttal witness and testified that appellant, when asked if he had come to this аrea in the truck parked near the crime scene, responded “yeah.” As a general rule, subject to proper foundation, a witness may be impeached by prior contradiсtory statements made by him as to matters relevant to his testimony in a case or by disproving the facts testified to by him. OCGA §§ 24-9-82; 24-9-83. Assuming without deciding that the incriminatory statement was obtained from appellant in viоlation of his
Miranda
rights, nevertheless “ ‘a prior incriminatory statement is admissible for impeachment purposes even if
Miranda
warnings had not been given.’ ”
Mack v. State,
Appellant’s various contentions in support of his four enumerations of error are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.