George L. Thomas, appellant, was charged with the malice murder of Randy Pritchard, but was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Thomas and his girl friend, Cathy Mays, went to the Green Front Cafe, in Griffin, Georgia, around midnight on April 2, 1984. They purchased sаndwiches and walked outside to the front of the cafe, where a dice game was in progress. Pritchard was shоoting dice and had lost around $25. Thomas said he had known Pritchard for some time and laughed at him. Pritchard and Thomas grаbbed each other and got into a shoving match which was broken up by Thomas’ brother, Jerry. Thomas testified that Pritchаrd, who was larger than he, told Thomas he could beat him, and Thomas told Pritchard he could not. Pritchard said, “you wait until I gеt back” and left for approximately 15 minutes. Pritchard walked toward Thomas, and Thomas said he thought Pritchard had lеft to get a knife, and he “stepped back. . . . Then he walked up on me again. That’s when I hit him with a stick. . . .” Thomas struck Pritchаrd on the right side of his head with a one-by-four timber, approximately three feet in length. Pritchard’s skull was fractured and he died shortly thereafter. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and Thomas brings this appeal. Held:
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal at the clоse of the State’s evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence. In the brief, counsel аrgues that the “uncontroverted and internally consistent statement and testimony of appellant simply failed tо authorize a malice murder conviction, and therefore the motions for directed verdict of acquittаl, should have been granted of the indicted offense, murder, and the defendant acquitted and discharged.”
Appеllant misperceives the purpose of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. The statute states, inter alia: “Where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrom shall demand a verdict of acquittal or ‘not guilty’
as to the entire offense
. . . the court may direct the verdict of acquittal to which the defendant is entitled. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 17-9-1 (a). The directed verdict of acquittal demanded by appellant was to “the entire offense” of malice murder, and was inappropriate if the evidence would sustain convic
*132
tion of any lesser included offense. See
Summers v. State,
2. Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law for a finding of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Thomas claims to have acted reasonably and in self-defense. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as causing the death of another under circumstances which would otherwise be murder except that the perpetrator “acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. . . .” OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). A person is justified in using force against another to the extent he reasonably believes such force is necessary to defend himself. OCGA § 16-3-21 (a). However, “a person is justified in using forсe which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such forсe is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” Id.
The distinguishing characteristic between voluntary manslaughter and justifiable homicide is whеther the accused was so influenced and excited that he reacted passionately rather than simply to defend himself.
Gregg v. State,
However, appellаnt provided the only eyewitness testimony of
*133
this incident. No weapon was found on the victim or in the vicinity, and apрellant did not say that he saw a weapon, only that he believed the purpose of Pritchard’s departurе was to obtain a weapon. A jury is not required to believe appellant’s self-defense testimony.
Jenkins v. State,
When the evidence is viewed in the light favorable to upholding the verdict, аs an appellate court is required to do, we find the evidence sufficient to enable any rational trier of facts to find the existence of the offense of voluntary manslaughter, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgment affirmed.