A jury rеturned verdicts finding Ron Manuel guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentencеd Manuel to life imprisonment for the malice murder charge and a consecutive five-year term for the weapons charge. Manuel appeals after thе denial of a motion for new trial and a motion for reconsideration. *
1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that, on the evening of December 17, 2005, police officer Taisha Rozier, as she was sitting in her squad car, heard four gunshots from the pathway between Old National Highway and Old National Parkway. She and Officer Hinеs called in a report at 7:31 p.m. and then headed toward the pathway, which is known as a high crime area due to frequent occurrences of drug sales and drug trafficking. At the Motel Six adjacent to the pathway, someone informed the officers that a body was lying farther down the path. At 8:02 p.m., the officers found the body of victim Kenneth Black аbout 75 feet up the pathway. The victim had been shot once in the face and three times in the chest. The officers did not find a wallet or any cash on the victim, and his right reаr pocket was turned inside out. The two bullets recovered from the victim’s body were determined by firearms experts to be .38 caliber hollow-point bullets that had been *384 fired from the same gun.
A prostitute, Melissa Stephens, had been with the victim in his room at the Quality Inn, also adjacent to the pathway, from around 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when she left the victim still alive. During this hour, the victim had left to get $700 from the ATM in order to pay Ms. Stephens.
Rahsean McIntosh, who was 16 years old at trial, and Emmanuel Adkins, who was 17 years old at trial and 15 years old at the time of the incident, werе playing basketball in the parking lot of Ashton Chase Apartments, also adjacent to the pathway, when they heard the gunshots. Less than a minute later, they saw a man comе out of the pathway with a silver gun in his hand. As the man was leaving the woods, he stepped beneath a light, at which time both boys could see the man’s face. Both boys identified Manuel from a photographic lineup as well as in court as the man they saw that night.
Manuel was arrested the day after the murder. During a search of his apartment, the poliсe found a .38 caliber hollow-point bullet, the same type of bullet as was found in the victim.
“When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving deference to the jury’s determination on the proper weight and credibility to be given the evidence.” [Cits.]
Hamrick v. State,
[t]hat some evidence offered by a witness seems contradictory to his own оr to some other’s, or incomplete or uncertain, does not automatically discredit the evidence given by that witness, or others, for it is the function of the triers of faсt to determine to what evidence it gives credence.
Simmons v. State,
[u]nder OCGA § 24-4-8, the testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. . . . [T]he lack of corroboration only goes to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the testifying witness, which is solely within the purview of the jury. [Cits.]
Samuels v. State,
2. Manuel contends that the trial court erred by not exercising its discretion in its review of the motion for new trial when assessing whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage оf justice may have resulted. In the motion for new trial, Manuel “specifically asserted that the verdict was ‘against the weight of the evidence.’ See OCGA § 5-5-21. . . .”
Alvelo v. State,
The presiding judge may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.
In its order denying the motion for new trial, the trial court stated that, “being constrained to the record, [it] is compellеd to conclude that, based upon the evidence actually before it, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Subsequently, Manuel filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to apply the appropriate discretionary standard set forth in
*386
OCGA § 5-5-21, pursuant to
Rutland v. State,
While the Court personally disagreed with the jury’s verdict, the Court is not empowered to overturn it where there were two competent and arguably credible witnеsses whom the jury believed and there was sufficient evidence to sustain it.
Although the State contends that we may infer that the trial court applied the appropriate discretionary standard from the fact that this order was issued in response to a motion specifically addressing that standard, the language in the order “fails to indicate thаt the trial court fulfilled its duty of exercising its discretion under the applicable standard set forth in OCGA § 5-5-21. . . .” Rutland v. State, supra.
It has long been the rule in this state that “ ‘the trial judge is vested with the strongest of discretions to review the case and to set the verdict aside if he is not satisfied with it.’ ”
Bhansali v. Moncada,
Furthermore, the use of the phrase “sufficient evidence,” which echoes the appellate standard of
Jackson v. Virginia,
also denotes that the trial court failed to apply its discretion, as the determination “if there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict... is a matter of law, not discretion. [Cits.]”
Jones v. State,
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand this case to the trial court for consideration оf the motion for new trial under the appropriate discretionary standard. Due to this holding, it is unnecessary for us to address the remaining enumeration of error at this time. Seе Alvelo v. State, supra at 439 (2).
Judgments vacated and case remanded.
Notes
The crimes occurred on December 17, 2005, and the grand jury returned the indictment on March 17, 2006. The jury found Manuel guilty on April 26,2007, and the trial court entered the judgments of conviction and sentences on May 8, 2007. The initial motion for new trial was filed on May 15, 2007, amended on April 12, 2010, and denied on July 22, 2010. On July 27, 2010, Manuel filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on September 1, 2010. Manuel filed a notice of appeal on September 7,20Í0, and the trial court granted an out-of-time appeal. The case was docketed in this Court for the April 2011 term, and oral argument was heard on May 16, 2011.