65847 | Ga. Ct. App. | Apr 6, 1983
Defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary. After his motion for new trial was filed, heard and denied, he appeals. Held:
We are concerned here only with the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the jury to return a verdict of guilty. According to the state’s evidence the burglary occurred between 5:30 p.m., August 21,
First of all, recent unexplained possession or recent unsatisfactorily explained possession of stolen goods is sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Evans v. State, 156 Ga. App. 162" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1980-10-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/evans-v-state-1250172?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1250172">156 Ga. App. 162 (275 SE2d 341). But in addition to this testimony under Gibbons v. State, 248 Ga. 858" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-02-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gibbons-v-state-1282290?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1282290">248 Ga. 858 (286 SE2d 717), aprior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible as substantive evidence. See Green v. State, 249 Ga. 369" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-04-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/green-v-state-1355990?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1355990">249 Ga. 369, 370 (2) (290 S.E.2d 466" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-04-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/green-v-state-1355990?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1355990">290 SE2d 466); Conyers v. State, 249 Ga. 438" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-05-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/conyers-v-state-1333074?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1333074">249 Ga. 438, 440 (2) (291 S.E.2d 709" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-05-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/conyers-v-state-1333074?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1333074">291 SE2d 709). Consequently, viewing the entire evidence here, a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found the essential elements of the crime of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harris v. State, 234 Ga. 871" court="Ga." date_filed="1975-09-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/harris-v-state-1378813?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1378813">234 Ga. 871, 873 (218 SE2d 583); Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 766" court="Ga." date_filed="1976-04-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/harris-v-state-1313305?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1313305">236 Ga. 766, 767 (225 SE2d 263); Moore v. State, 240 Ga. 807" court="Ga." date_filed="1978-02-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-state-1416349?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1416349">240 Ga. 807, 811 (II-l) (243 S.E.2d 1" court="Ga." date_filed="1978-02-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-state-1416349?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1416349">243 SE2d 1). After careful review of the trial transcript and the record, we are convinced and so hold that a rational trier of fact (the jury in this case) could reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Davis v. State, 249 Ga. 309" court="Ga." date_filed="1982-04-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/davis-v-state-1356003?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1356003">249 Ga. 309, 310 (290 SE2d 273); Sanders v. State, 246 Ga. 42 (1) (268 SE2d 628).
Judgment affirmed.