A jury fоund Donald Mangham guilty of burglary and aggravated assault with intent to rape. On appeal, Mangham asserts (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior aggravated sodomy conviction and (2) therе is insufficient evidence of intent to support his convictions. We affirm.
“ ‘On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the apрellant (defendant here) no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of
Jackson v. Virginia,
Viewed in this light, the record shows that on August 10, 1995, Manghаm and Greg Wilson joined a group of people standing in the road in front of the victim’s home. The victim, a 17-year-old female, joined this group and met Mangham for the first time. Later that evening, one of the victim’s female friends began dancing and took off her shirt and shorts. She did not remove her bra and underpants. The victim danced with her friend, but did not remove any of her clothing. Mangham and Wilson were present during the danсing.
After dancing for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, the victim went inside her home to go to bed. Mangham and Wilson walked two of the victim’s female friends home, including the one who had removed her clothing while danсing. Wilson then returned to the victim’s home and, while standing outside her bedroom window, offered her money for oral sex. The victim declined, and Wilson left. After Wilson’s departure, the victim heard people talking outside, but she “couldn’t understand what they were saying.” Since she “didn’t feel right,” she closed and locked her bedroom window and let the blind down.
Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, between 1:00 and 2:30 a.m., the victim heаrd a noise from her grandmother’s bedroom window. She went to her grandmother’s room and noticed that a fan had been removed from a window in the bedroom. She also saw Mangham climbing through the window with an oаk stick in his hand. The victim hit Mangham with a stick used to hold the window open, but he “just kept coming.” The victim then ran outside into the *568 street and screamed for help. Mangham chased her and grabbed her by the hair. After the viсtim fell, Mangham dragged her across the pavement toward an abandoned house across the street from her home. As the victim screamed and struggled to get away, Mangham hit her and said “shut up, bitch” and “it’s gоnna happen anyway.” After Mangham dragged the victim to the bottom step of the abandoned house, a truck drove down the street while a neighbor screamed “leave that girl alone.” After the truсk pulled up, Mangham walked away. Law enforcement officers arrived shortly thereafter.
A witness, Kendrick Dallas, testified that as he was walking home that evening, he saw Mangham standing with Wilson at the abandoned house. As Dallas continued down the street, he watched Mangham walk toward the victim’s home with a stick. When Wilson saw Dallas, he told Mangham “to come back.” Since Dallas “had a feeling they was fixing to do something,” he cut through a side yard and hid behind a tree. When he did not see anything as he looked up the street toward the victim’s home, he turned around and started walking toward his home again. When he heard a scrеam, he ran back to the tree and saw the victim on the side of the road with someone standing over her and beating her. Dallas then ran and called the police.
Officer Puckett testified that he investigated the case and obtained a statement from Mangham. In this statement, Mangham admitted he was with Wilson in the vicinity of the attack that evening. He also acknowledged he had been “drinking beer and smoking сrack” that evening. When Officer Puckett asked Mangham, “[i]s it possible that you entered [the victimjs house through the window by taking the fan out and going inside and running her out,” Mangham replied, “I don’t see how I could go through a window ‘cause I was so high and drunk. I may have, I don’t know. I’m not sure. I could have did it, I don’t know. I was just so high and drunk.”
The trial court allowed the State to present evidence of Mangham’s 1988 conviction for aggravated sodоmy of a young woman. Captain Jett testified that he questioned Mangham in connection with this charge and Mangham admitted “[a]ll day, I had been drinking beer and doing — smoking cocaine. In the evening, I walked down the park, and I seen this girl coming through there by herself and I just grabbed her. I stuck my penis in her mouth, and that was it.” When asked whether the victim resisted, Mangham replied, “She just opened her mouth, and I stuck it in. I was really high and I didn’t really know.” Officer Loeffer testified that she interrupted Mangham’s assault of the victim while responding to a report of screams and an attack in the park.
1. Mangham contends the trial court erred when it allowed the State to present evidence of his prior aggravated sodomy conviction.
*569
“[E]vidence of an independent offense or act committed by the accused is highly and inherently prejudicial, raising, as it does, an inference that an accused who acted in a certain manner on one occasion is likely to have acted in the same or in a similar manner on another occasion. . . .”
Williams v. State,
“[T]he rules regarding the use of similar transaction evidence are construed most liberally in cases involving sexual offenses. [Cit.]”
Lumsden v. State,
2. Mangham contends there is insufficient evidence of intent to
*570
support his convictions of burglary and aggravated assault with intent to rape. Intent to rape, whiсh is an essential element of both the burglary and aggravated assault charges against Mangham,
1
may be shown by circumstantial evidence. See
Kinney v. State,
In
Kinney,
supra, this Court found sufficient evidence to affirm a burglary with intent to rape conviction.
Since the evidence in this case is very similar to the evidence at issue in
Kinney,
we find it sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Mаngham guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kinney,
supra. See also
Butler,
supra;
Lester v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Intent to commit a felony is an essential element of burglary. OCGA § 16-7-1 (a). The indictment alleged Mangham committed burglary “with the intent to commit a felony, to wit: Rape. . . .” It also alleged he committed aggravated assault with intent to rape. See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1).