Defendant was charged in two indictments for crimes stemming from separate attacks upon the same victim, a 72-year-old man. The *658 first attack occurred during the late evening of November 1,1989, and forms the basis of a single-count indictment charging defendant with armed robbery. The second attack occurred late in the evening on November 14, 1989, and forms the basis of a three-count indictment charging defendant with burglary, armed robbery and theft by taking a motor vehicle. Defendant moved to sever the indictments when the cases were called for trial, but the trial court denied this motion and the cases were jointly tried before a jury.
At trial, the elderly victim could not recall who attacked him on November 1, 1989, but he identified defendant as the perpetrator of the November 14, 1989, attack. Defendant did not dispute the victim’s testimony. In fact, he admitted going to the victim’s home on both occasions with accomplices, but explained that he was too drunk to remember either incident. The accomplices, however, testified that defendant was a party to acts which constitute the crimes charged in the indictments. Specifically, the first accomplice testified that he went with defendant to the victim’s home on November 1, 1989, and that defendant attacked the victim, beat him with a tire iron and took the victim’s wallet. The other accomplice testified that he and defendant went to the victim’s home on November 14, 1989, after musing about defendant’s success in robbing the victim on November 1, 1989, forced their way into the victim’s trailer and fled after beating the victim and taking various items of personal property. This accomplice explained that he escaped in defendant’s car while defendant fled in the victim’s pickup truck.
The jury found defendant guilty on all counts of the indictments, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentence for each offense. This appeal followed the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial. Held:
1. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to direct verdicts of acquittal as to all counts of the indictments, arguing that the victim’s testimony is incomplete, inconsistent and unreliable. We decline to address this argument as it is not the function of this court to judge witness credibility or weigh the evidence. The credit to be given the testimony of any witness is for the jury to determine under proper instructions from the court.
Welch v. State,
Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act is all that is necessary to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice.
Earl v. State,
2. In his second enumeration, defendant contends the charges relating to the two separate assaults were improperly joined and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance.
Offenses stemming from separate criminal incidents may be joined for trial if they are based on a series of acts that are connected or part of a single scheme or plan.
Dingler v. State,
In the case sub judice, the separate assaults at the victim’s home were not just similar in character. There is evidence that defendant went to the victim’s home on November 14, 1989, because of the success of his attack upon the victim on November 1, 1989. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant’s motion to sever. “ Tt is not an abuse of that discretion in the interest of justice and economy for the judge to refuse a motion for severance of the trial of multiple charges where the crimes alleged were part of a continuous transaction or series of similar transactions conducted over a relatively short time, and from the nature of the entire transaction, it would be difficult to present to a jury evidence of one of the crimes without also referring or permitting evidence of the others. (Cit.) . . .’
Gilbert v. State,
3. Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing evidence of incriminating admissions he made while in police custody, arguing that he did not voluntarily submit to police questioning because the interrogating law enforcement officer informed him that “his girlfriend . . . would be arrested if he did not tell what happened.”
“ ‘The trial court’s findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of statements will be upheld on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Higginbotham v. State,
Judgment affirmed.