Williе Terrell and Anthony Demetrius Hill were found guilty of the felony murder, aggravated assault with intent to rob, and armed robbery of Charles Boyd. Each received consecutive life terms. 1 Both *723 defendants appeal, asserting аs error the trial court’s charge on flight and the general grounds. Defendant Terrell complains additionаlly .-’about the trial court’s charge on circumstantial evidence.
The victim was sitting in the driver’s seat of his cаr when a man reached inside the driver’s window and stabbed him with a butcher knife while another man stood at the passenger’s front door, attempting to keep the victim from escaping. The victim was able to get out of the passenger side of the car, then ran up to a witness sitting in a car parked nearby and cаlled for help, stating he was being robbed. The victim, who had blood on his shirt, continued to run down the street as two men chased him saying, “He got the keys. Get the keys.” Meanwhile, a third man searched through the victim’s car and wallet. One of the men chasing the victim finally caught up with the victim and stabbed him several times with a knife. The victim was takеn to Grady Hospital and, before he died as a result of a stab wound to his chest, gave police officers the names “Tony” and “Adrian” as his attackers. Shortly after the stabbing, defendant Terrell stopped аn acquaintance near the scene of the crimes, stated he had just stabbed someone, and аsked for a ride home. The acquaintance, who noticed what appeared to be blood on the appellant’s clothing, refused. Later, defendant Terrell got a ride away from the vicinity of the crime scene and the driver overheard him say “Damn Tony.” Early the next morning, defendant Terrell, talking to two wоmen outside their apartment complex about the stabbing, stated that the victim should have died and that “thе bastard was broke anyway.” A Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint expert identified four sets of prints оn the victim’s car as those of defendant Hill.
1. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found both defendants guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. The defendants contend the trial court’s charge on flight was unconstitutionally burden-shifting. The jury was charged that it might: '
. . . consider flight by a defendant frоm the scene of an occurrence if any such has been proved. And from the facts if *724 proved an inference of guilt may arise. But flight is subject to explanation. And the weight to be given to it or whether or not the jury will draw from it a consciousness of guilt is for the jury to determine.
*724
We find that this charge is not, as defendants contend, unconstitutionally burden-shifting, see
Noggle v. State,
3. Defendant Terrell contends the trial court erred by failing to charge OCGA § 24-4-6 which states:
To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.
Where, as hеre, there is some direct evidence against the defendant, it is not error to fail to charge on circumstantial evidence.
Whittington v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes were committed on Octobеr 10, 1985. Defendant Terrell was indicted on *723 January 28, 1986 and defendant Hill was indicted on January 13, 1987. They were convictеd on February 20, 1987. The transcript was certified on January 24, 1988. Defendant Terrell’s motion for new trial, filed on March 16, 1987, and defendant Hill’s motion for new trial, filed on March 26, 1987, were denied on February 26, 1988. Both defendants filed their notiсes of appeal on March 28, 1988. Defendant Terrell’s appeal was docketed here оn June 21, 1988 and submitted for decision without argument on August 5,. 1988. Defendant Hill’s appeal was docketed here on July 1, 1988 аnd submitted for decision on August 12, 1988.
The charge given by the trial court, found in Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. 2, p. 14, is as follows:
Evidence may also be used to prove a fact by inference. And this is referred to as circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstаnces by direct evidence from which you may infer other related or connected facts which аre reasonable and justified in the light of your experience.
The language of OCGA § 24-4-6 is also set out in the рattern charge book with the instructions, “Give the following only if one or more essential elements of the State’s case is based on circumstantial evidence.”
The better practice, if the principle of circumstantial evidence is to be charged at all, is to charge both the pattern charge book’s definition of circumstantial evidence as well as the cautionary language of OCGA § 24-4-6. See
Patterson v. State,