Tellis Savalis Payne appeals his conviction for sale of crack cocaine. He contends the trial court erred by charging and recharging the jury on parties to a crime, by allowing the jury, during their deliberations, to view a videotape that had been introduced in evidence, and by sentencing him to a life sentence under OCGA § 16-13-30 (d) even though proper notice under OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) was not givеn. Payne further contends the verdict is contrary to the evidence, is not supported by the evidеnce, and is illegal and unwarranted under the law and evidence. Viewed in support of the verdict, the evidence shows that Payne, accompanied by a man named Watkins, sold the crack cocaine to a paid informant who was cooperating with the drug task force. After his conviction, Payne was sentenced to life imprisonment. Held\
1. In his first and third enumerations of error, Payne contends the trial court erred by charging and recharging the jury on the issue of parties to a crime because the evidence did not support such a charge.
(a) “Where there is any evidеnce, however slight, upon a particular point, it is not error to charge the law in relatiоn to that issue.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Adams v. State,
(b) After retiring to the jury room, the jury requested a recharge on the issue of parties to a crime. “It seems to be a general proposition that the necessity, extent, and character of any supplemental instructions to the jury are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court. . . . Our review is limited to determining whether that discretion was аbused, taking into account the sensitive nature of the judge’s responsibility at this stage of the trial and the duty of the trial judge to provide impartial and effective guidance on the law for the jury to follow in its deliberations.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Litmon v. State,
2. In his second enumeration of error, Payne contends the trial *319 court erred in allowing the jury, after it began its deliberations, to view the videotape that had been introduced into evidence. The record reveals that after the jury had retired to the jury room but before it began deliberating, the trial judge sent a note informing jurors that, if they wished to see the tape again, they would have to view it in open court. Although Payne was aware of the note, there was no objection to the note being sent to the jury. Aftеr deliberating for approximately 30 minutes, the jury requested to view the videotape. Counsel for appellant objected to this request.
“ ‘It has been recognized for more than a hundred yеars that it is permissible for the trial judge, in his discretion, to permit the jury at their instigation to rehear requеsted parts of the evidence after they have retired and begun deliberations.
Byrd v. State,
3. Pasme enumerates the general grounds. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude there was sufficient evidence at trial for a rational trier of fact to find proof of Payne’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
4. In his final enumeration, Payne contends that notice of the State’s intention to introduce evidence in aggravation of punishment was not timely given pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-2 (a).
The record establishes that Payne was served with a сopy of the notice while the jury was being selected but before they were sworn. OCGA § 17-10-2 (a) provides that notice must be given before trial.
Sinkfield v. State,
Payne also asserts in his brief that the trial court was not presented with a certified copy of his prior conviction during the sentencing hearing аs required by OCGA § 17-10-2. A review of the record establishes that this argument was not raised within the enumeration of еrror. “ ‘An enumeration of error cannot be enlarged to include other issues not made therein.’ ”
Hurston v. Ga. Farm Bureau &c. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.