Appellants Elmer Kirksey, Bernessa Riddle, and Hubert Riddle and two other defendants were all jointly tried for armed robbery. Appellants Elmer Kirksey and Hubert Riddle were found guilty of armed robbery. Appellant Bernessa Riddle was found guilty of robbery by intimidation. Of the remaining two defendants, one was acquitted and the other does not appeal. Appellants, however, filed sep *429 arate appeals from the judgments entered on the verdicts. For purposes of appeal, the three cases are hereby consolidated and will be addressed in this single opinion.
1. Appellants each enumerate as error the general grounds. The evidence adduced at trial showed that the victim was robbed at knife point while in his home. A group of people participated in the crime, four of whom the victim observed at the time and later identified at trial. Appellants Bernessa Riddle, whom the victim knew, and Kirksey were among those he identified at trial as the robbers. Both appellants Kirksey and Hubert Riddle confessed their participation in the crime to the police, and their confessions were read into evidence. Appellant Kirksey had been identified, shortly after the robbery, buying items from a convenience store with money stolen from the victim. Appellant Bernessa Riddle testified at trial, implicating the other two appellants in the robbery and admitting her presence at the scene of the crime, but denying any participation. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to enable a rational trior of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants committed the offenses of which they were convicted.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant Hubert Riddle moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the ground that his confession, which he alleged to be uncorroborated, was insufficient to authorize his conviction. The denial of this motion is enumerated as error.
It is true that “ ‘[a] confession alone, uncorroborated by any other evidence shall not justify a conviction.’ [OCGA § 24-3-53.] ‘However, proof of the corpus delicti is held to be sufficient corroboration.’ [Cit.]”
Rosser v. State,
3. Each appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial following improper argument by the prosecutor.
Two separate instances are at issue. On both occasions, the trial court followed the denial of the motions for mistrial with curative instructions to the jury. No further objections or motions for mistrial were made. The denial of a motion for mistrial is not subject to review when the motion is not renewed following corrective instructions.
Whitaker v. State,
Judgments affirmed.