Larry Millirons appeals his conviction of one count of burglary (OCGA § 16-7-1). He contends that the trial cоurt erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence was not sufficient tо convict him of burglary. Millirons further alleges the trial court erred by not including the co-defendant’s namе when reading the indictment to the jury. Finding no error, we now affirm.
On appeal, Millirons argues that the Statе failed to prove all of the elements of burglary, specifically that of “entry.” He asserts thаt the state relied solely on the testimony of an impeached witness (the co-defendant) whо said that he saw Millirons enter the house. Then, Millirons argues that even if the co-defendant’s testimony is to be believed and relied upon solely, OCGA§ 24-4-8 renders his testimony insufficient because he is an acсomplice to a felony.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shоws that the victim was expecting the co-defendant to come to his *645 home to do some rеpairs and that he did not show up at the scheduled time. When the co-defendant and Millirons finally arrived at the victim’s home, no one was at the house. The co-defendant saw Millirons go inside the house and the neighbor witnessed him make several trips from the victim’s house to the truck. The victim returned home to find several items missing, including two guitars, an amplifier, and a Craftsman tool set. The victim later recovered all of the stolen items from the co-defendant.
1. In
Ross v. State,
Amotion for a directed verdict of acquittal should be granted only when there is no confliсt in the evidence and the evidence with all reasonable deductions and inferences thеrefrom demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. OCGA§ 17-9-1 (a);
Taylor v. State,
2. Millirons’ next argument fails on its face. He argues that he is entitled to a new trial bеcause the weight of the evidence was contrary to the verdict. The authority to grant a nеw trial on that basis, however, is vested in the trial court by OCGA § 5-5-21. The law gives
*646
to the trial judge alone the authority to grant a new trial for that reason. This court has no such power.
Dixon v. State,
3. Finally, Millirons contends that the trial court erred by omitting the co-defendant’s name from the indictment when charging the jury. Assuming that the court erred in its charge to the jury, we find that the error was of a harmless nature for several reasons. The co-defendаnt had pled guilty and been sentenced before the commencement of trial. Also, the cо-defendant testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. During opening statements, Millirons objected to the reading of the indictment without the co-defendant’s name and Millirons’ status as a co-defendant was clarified at that time. Finally, the co-defendant’s name appears оn the indictment that was sent back with the jury.
A party seeking a reversal must show not only error, but injury arising from the error alleged.
Martin v. State,
Judgment affirmed.