After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of malice murder and also of subsequently concealing the death of the victim. He re *767 ceived a life sentence for the murder and was given a concurrent sentence of 12 months for his concealment of the death of the victim. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts. 1
1. Appellant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize his conviction for concealing the death of the victim. He does, however, enumerate the genеral grounds as to his malice murder conviction.
Appellant knew the victim and was a friend of the victim’s housemates. The homicide occurred while appellant and the victim were alone in the victim’s house. According to appellant, he killed the victim in self-defense. However, the Stаte adduced evidence that, shortly after the homicide, appellant had admitted to thе victim’s housemates that he had killed the victim, but he had not at that time claimed to have acted in self-defense. Moreover, appellant never contacted the authorities after the homicide. Instead, he enlisted the aid of the victim’s housemates in disposing of the evidence and employed threats in an attempt to secure their silence. Appellant conсealed the victim’s body in a desolate area. Although the victim’s housemates were at the sсene shortly after the homicide, they saw nothing to indicate that a fight had taken place оn the premises or that appellant had suffered any injury. The victim, who was known to “flash” his money, had bеen severely beaten. The victim’s wallet was also missing and was never recovered.
“Malice is a state of mind and frequently must be proven indirectly.”
Davis v. State,
We find that the facts and cirсumstances were sufficient to authorize the [jury] to infer malice pursuant to OCGA § 16-5-1 (b), and that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found [appellant] guilty of [malice murder] beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Latimore v. State,
2. Appellant enumerates as error the admission of evidence that *768 the victim’s wallet was missing.
Appellant did not object to the admission of the evidence. He urges, however, that this enumeration is nevertheless reviewable under the “plain error” rule.
This Court has not adоpted the plain error rule in cases in which the death penalty is not sought. However, even if wе were to consider the facts of this case under the plain error rule, the assertion of error is without merit.
Owens v.
State,
Evidence that the victim’s wallet was missing was admissible as part of the res gestae. See
Chambers v. State,
Moreover, the еvidence was also admissible as relevant to rebut appellant’s claim of self-defense by establishing the existence of a motive for his intentional killing of the victim. “ ‘While motive is not an essentiаl element in the proof of the crime of murder, the State is entitled to present evidencе to establish that there was a motive.’ [Cit.]”
Whitener v. State,
3. Appellant enumerates as error numerous purpоrted deficiencies in the trial court’s instructions to the jury.
The record demonstrates that appellant’s right to enumerate error as to the jury charge was waived.
White v. State,
4. Appellant urges that his trial counsel was ineffective and that thе trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
Appellant contends that his trial counsel’s perfоrmance was deficient in connection with the jury charge. However,
[t]o establish that there hаs been actual ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsеl’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Baggett v. State,
conclude that most of the charges were not errоneous and that, even assuming that others were erroneous, [appellant] *769 has failed to establish that there is a reasonable probability that proper charges would have affected the result of the trial. [Cit.]
Peavy v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on June 14,1992. Appellant was indicted on August 28,1992. The guilty verdicts were returned on November 5,1992 and the sentences were imposed on Jаnuary 14, 1993. Appellant’s motion for new trial was filed on February 10, 1993 and was denied on September 13, 1993. His notice of appeal was filed on September 17, 1993. The case was docketed in this court on October 21, 1993 and was submitted for decision on December 3, 1993.