On appeal from his conviction for aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, and other crimes, Christopher Jones argues that the evidence was insufficient as to the charge of criminal damage to property and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial concerning the State’s failure to provide him with exculpatory evidence. We find no error and affirm.
“On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, with the defendant no longer enjoying a presumption of innocence.” (Citation omitted.) Reese v. State,
So viewed, the record shows that on the early afternoon of February 4, 2006, the victim was babysitting a friend’s child when Jones, who was the victim’s boyfriend at the time, became angry and hit her, first with his fists and then with a handgun. Later that evening, Jones returned to the victim’s house and was talking to her when two other friends of the victim knocked on her door. Jones, who was wearing a dark shirt, fled through the back door. Moments later, the victim and her friends, who had entered the house, heard gunshots outside. The male friend looked out the window and saw a figure in a dark shirt firing a handgun at his car. Thirteen nine- millimeter casings were recovered at the scene. Jones was charged with aggravated assault, battery, criminal damage to property in the second degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Before trial, the victim notified the prosecutor that she wanted to drop the charges against Jones and drafted a dismissal of warrant to that effect. The prosecutor sent Jones an e-mail telling him of the victim’s “hesitance to prosecute.” At trial, and after asking whether the victim “want[ed] to be here today,” Jones’s attorney raised the subject of the victim’s attempt to dismiss the charges. At the conclusion of the victim’s testimony, Jones moved for a mistrial on the
The owner of the car testified that the bullets caused at least $4,000 in damage. At the conclusion of the State’s case, Jones moved for a directed verdict on the criminal damage to property count for lack of evidence that he had been identified as the person who shot at the car. The trial court denied the motion. After a jury found Jones guilty on all counts, he was convicted and sentenced to seventeen years with seven to serve.
1. Jones argues that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his conviction for second-degree criminal damage to property. We disagree.
This victim testified that Jones was wearing a dark shirt when he fled through the back door after hearing the knock of the victim’s friends, and the male friend testified that moments later, he saw a man in a dark shirt shooting at his car parked outside the victim’s house. This evidence that Jones is the person who shot at the male friend’s car was circumstantial, but it does not necessarily follow that it was insufficient to sustain Jones’s conviction. As we commented in another case involving a shooting that caused damage to a car:
[I]n an entirely circumstantial case, the question whether there is a reasonable hypothesis favorable to the accused is the jury’s province. Questions as to reasonableness are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence, and finds beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. The appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilty is insupportable as a matter of law. The appellate courts have no yardstick by which to ordinarily determine what in a given case is a reasonable hypothesis, save the opinion of 12 jurors of rational mind. Moreover, in every case the jury is the arbiter of credibility including as to the defendant’s explanation, and the jury is the body which resolves conflicting evidence, and where the jury has done so, the appellate court cannot merely substitute its judgment for that of the jury.
Giles v. State,
Under these facts, including the evidence outlined above, the question whether circumstantial evidence as to the shooter’s identity excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than Jones’s guilt was for the jury. As the guilty verdict is supportable as a matter of law, we will not substitute our judgment for the jury’s as to it. Giles,
2. Jones also argues that the trial court violated Brady v. Maryland,
The record shows that Jones’s attorney introduced the subject of the victim’s efforts to drop the case against him in the course of his cross-examination of her. The record also shows that Jones objected to the State’s failure to produce the draft dismissal not on Brady grounds, but under the Georgia Criminal Discovery Procedure Act, OCGA § 17-6-1 et seq.
Because Jones failed to raise his Brady objection at trial, he has waived it on appeal. Jones v. State,
Judgment affirmed.