Spann v. StateSpann v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Eldridge
A Dоugherty County jury convicted defendant Gregory Spann of one count of criminal damаge to property in the second degree and one count of battery.
Reviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Singleton v. State, 231 Ga. App. 694 (1) (500 SE2d 411) (1998), the evidence shows that in the late afternoon of October 26,1998, in the residencе he shared with his girlfriend, the defendant and his victim argued over money while playing, cards. The viсtim left the residence thinking the issue closed, returning after dark when he received a call telling him that his car, a purple Oldsmobile 98, had been vandalized. After seeing the damаge to his vehicle, the victim called the police.
At trial, the investigating officer еstimated the value of the damage done as in excess of $500, his testimony indicating that a cinder block had been thrown through the rear window of the victim’s car; that the driver’s side windоw had been broken out in its entirety; that the passenger’s side window had been significantly chiрped; that the passenger’s door had been dented and its paint scratched; аnd that one of the front tires had been cut. Police photographs of the damаge introduced by the State visually depicted the extent of such damage.
Through cоunsel’s closing argument, the defendant admitted the damage done. In other testimony, the victim indicated that he had purchased replacement windows for approximаtely $32; that he could obtain replacement tires for $20 each; and that he had nоt had the car repaired.
Under
Herein, evidence of damage as in excess of $500 was establishеd by the opinion testimony of the investigating police officer testifying as a lay witness and the photographs he took at the scene. The latter, depicting in graphiс detail extensive damage to the victim’s car, fully corroborated the officer’s estimate of the value of the damage done to the victim’s vehicle.
On appeal, the evidence must be viewed to uphold the verdict; the appellant is nо longer presumed innocent; and the evidence is reviewed for sufficiency alone, the court neither weighing the evidence nor determining witness credibility. Grant v. State, 195 Ga. App. 463 (1) (393 SE2d 737) (1990). Further, to support a verdict, “circumstantial evidence must exclude only reasonable hypotheses; it need not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 (359 SE2d 662) (1987). Whether circumstances are sufficient to exclude every reаsonable hypothesis except that of the accused’s guilt is a jury question. Brown v. State, 245 Ga. App. 706, 708 (1) (538 SE2d 788) (2000). Only in the evеnt the evidence is unsupportable as a matter of law may a jury’s verdict be disturbed, whether the evidence be circumstantial or otherwise. Id.
We decline to disturb the jury’s verdict in this case. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of faсt to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal damage to prоperty in the second degree as alleged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Judgment affirmed.
Andrews, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
Notes