A Taylor County jury found Davoris Harp guilty of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. On appeal, Harp contends that the evidence was only sufficient to convict hita on one count of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. We disagree.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence showed that Harp and another male approached E H. and his girlfriend, D. M., outside their home. Harp pointed the gun at E H.’s face and demanded money. When E H. responded that he had no money, Harp turned the gun on D. M. She also denied having any money. Eventually, E H. took his “papers” out of his shirt pocket, handed them to D. M., and asked her to “show them I don’t have no money.” D. M. rummaged through the papers and found a $20 bill, which Harp directed she give to Harp’s companion.
“A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the
*18
person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon.” OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). “Robbery is a crime against possession, and is not affected by concepts of ownership.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Carter v. State,
Here, the evidence showed that there were two victims who were robbed by Harp. D. M. was in actual possession of the $20 bill and was forced to surrender the money at gunpoint, and so she was a victim of armed robbery. See, e.g.,
Cecil v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
