Thе appellant, Austin Jackson, was cоnvicted of voluntary man *848 slaughter, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed weapon, and carrying a pistol without а license. On appeal, in addition to asserting the general grounds, Jackson contends that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a state rebuttal witness whose name was not on the witness list and who viоlated the rule of sequestration. Held:
*848
1. The state called a witness in rebuttal of Jackson’s testimony. Jackson objected to the admission of this witness’ testimony, but оnly upon the grounds that (1) the witness had been in the courtroom during the trial in violation of the rule of sequestration, and (2) the witness was tоo drunk to testify in any event. Accordingly, we will nоt consider Jackson’s present cоntention that the testimony should have been excluded because the witness’s name was not included in the list of witnesses furnished pursuant to OCGA § 17-7-110, which is raised for the first time on appeal.
Proffitt v. State,
2. Jackson also contends that the witness’ testimony should have been exсluded because of the witness’ violatiоn of the rule of sequestration. Howevеr, violation of the sequestration rule mаy affect the weight and credibility of the offending witness, but it does not render that witness incompetent to testify.
Bradford v. State,
3. After the expiratiоn of the time allowed for filing his original brief аnd enumeration of errors, Jackson filed a supplementary brief that contains additional enumerations of error. “Enumеrations of error may not be amended after the time for filing has expired.
Burke v. State,
4. Viewing thе evidence in the light most favorable tо the verdict, we conclude that the evidence authorized a rational trier of fact to find Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.