Thе appellant, Diadra Nelson, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and possession of cocainе in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. On appeal, she contends that the trial court errеd in admitting into evidence a custodial statement and testimony about her drug use, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
On June 14, 1991, Nelson had an altercation with her boyfriend. It is undisputed that the subject matter of the fight was crack cocaine, although who was using the drug was in conflict. Nelson, who denied ever using drugs, claimed that the argument arose over her demand that her boyfriend keep his supply of cocaine out of her apartment. However, another witness stated that she and Nelson had been smoking crack cocaine all that day, and that the fight developed when Nelson’s boyfriend returned home and became irate over their using the drug without him. Nelson’s father was present and tried to end the argument, but at some point Nelson retrieved a pistol from a bedroom and shоt her boyfriend in the mouth. The boyfriend never regained consciousness and died 55 days later.
Before the policе arrived at the scene, Nelson’s father and another individual mopped up some of the blood on the floor, and Nelson placed the gun in a clothes hamper. Initially, the police were told that the gunshot injury was self-inflictеd, but Nelson eventually claimed that the shooting was accidental, with the weapon having discharged when she was waving it in an attempt to make her boyfriend leave her alone. During their investigation of the scene, the police officers observed drug paraphernalia, cocaine residue, and empty vials on the dining table, and they found 49 hits of crack cocaine in a hallway storage area. The officers also removed crack cocaine from both front pockets of Nelson’s pants. At the trial, Nelson denied having cocaine in her pockets, and explained that she had merely been holding in her hand some cocaine that had fallen out of hеr boyfriend’s jacket pocket.
When Nelson retrieved the gun for the police during their investigation, the hammer was cocked and ready to fire again. At the trial, a firearms expert with the state crime lab testified that the gun was a high quality revolver which required approximately ten pounds of pressure pulling the trigger to cock the hammer. Oncе the hammer was cocked, three pounds of pressure were needed to fire the weapon.
1. On the evening of the incident, Nelson gave an inculpatory custodial statement to the police. Following a
Jackson v. Denno
hearing during whiсh only the interrogating officer testified, the trial court admitted the statement into evidence without explaining its ruling
*687
detеrmining the voluntariness of the statement. Nelson contends that this omission requires remand of the case for clarificаtion as to the admissibility of the custodial statement, as was done in
Parker v. State,
Generally, when a trial court denies a motion tо suppress a custodial statement without explanation, remand is necessary for such clarification.
Parker v. State,
supra;
Hicks v. State,
In the instаnt case, the testimony of the interrogating officer during the Jackson v. Denno hearing showed Nelson’s statement to be voluntary, and Nelsоn presented no evidence whatsoever regarding the voluntariness of her statement. Under these circumstanсes, there was no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress without explanation. Hart v. State, supra.
2. One witness testified on behalf of the state that she was present at Nelson’s apartment much of the day of the shooting, smoking cоcaine with Nelson. Over objection, the prosecutor was allowed to ask this witness if this was the first time she had used drugs with Nelsоn. Nelson contends that this inquiry impermissibly placed her character into evidence.
However, in addition to the homicide, Nelson was indicted for possession of cocaine, and the indictment did not show the date of the offеnse to be an essential averment. Evidence that she had been in possession of cocaine at any time during the statute of limitation thus was admissible to prove that offense, and was not evidence of similar transactions within thе ambit of USCR 31.1.
Robinson v. State,
3. Lastly, Nelson contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict of acquittal. However, on appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to uphold the jury verdict; the appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and not witness credibility.
Plumm v. State,
A directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only whеre there is no conflict in the evidence, and the evidence demands a verdict of “not guilty.” OCGA § 17-9-1. Where the evidence is sufficient to meet the standard stated in
Jackson v. Virginia,
supra, “it cannot possibly be said the evidence
demanded
a verdict of acquittal.”
Miller v. State,
Judgment affirmed.