In a one-count indictment, the appellant, Gerald Edward Thompson, and a co-defendant, Charles Milton Poag, were indicted for the armed robbery of a convenience store. Following a trial by jury, Thompson was convicted of the offense and sentenced to 18 years in prison. 1 This appeal followed.
At trial, the evidence produced by the state showed that on the afternoon of August 29, 1992, Poag and Thompson arrived at the convenience store in a blue Ford Fairmont. Poag initially entered the store, purchased a soft drink, and returned to the automobile. Thompson never entered the store. However, while Poag was inside the store, he stood at an inoperable pay phone located in front of the *656 store, with his head down, and later joined Poag at the automobile.
Pоag subsequently reentered the store, and while wielding a knife, struck the cashier on the side of her body, and demandеd that she surrender the contents of the store’s register. He further instructed her to remove the cord from the storе’s telephone. The cashier gave Poag approximately $1,600 in cash, food stamps, and the teleрhone cord. The two men subsequently fled the store’s parking lot in the Ford Fairmont at a high rate of speed. The state and counsel for the defense stipulated that Poag and Thompson were apprehended in Kansаs on September 21, 1992, in the automobile in question and in possession of a knife. The cashier identified the knife as thе weapon used in the robbery.
Poag was the only witness presented by the defense. He testified that he robbed thе convenience store alone as a “spur of the moment” act and that Thompson was unaware оf his intention to commit the offense. He admitted that he was the owner of the automobile in question and had driven thе automobile to the store on August 29, 1992. He further admitted that he and Thompson spent the robbery proceeds in Gеorgia and during their road trip to California.
1. In enumerations 1 and 3, Thompson asserts the general grounds. He initially contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, and further asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We disagree.
A directed verdict of acquittal is proper оnly “where there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deduсtions and inferences therefrom shall demand a verdict of acquittal. OCGA § 17-9-1 (a).” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Wright v.
State,
In the case sub judiсe, the evidence of Thompson’s participation in the robbery venture is in conflict. While Thompson’s merе presence at the scene is not sufficient to convict him of being a party to a crime, the jury was authоrized to infer his criminal intent from his conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
Sands v. State,
*657
Having reviewed this evidenсe under the appropriate standards of appellate review, we conclude that a ratiоnal trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was guilty of the offense charged.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. During the state’s case-in-chief, Investigator Jackie Edmond-son, of the Brоoks County Sheriff’s Department, testified that in the course of his investigation of the robbery, he located Bobby Clark, an acquaintance of Poag and Thompson. The state was unsuccessful in attempting to locate Clark prior to trial. Over Thompson’s objection, the trial court allowed Edmondson to relate a conversation that he had with Clark after the robbery which led to the issuance of arrest warrants for the two men. According to thе investigator, Poag told Clark on the day of the robbery that he had to go to the bank to obtain some money. Aрproximately forty-five minutes later, the two men returned to Clark’s home with pockets full of money.
In his second enumеration, Thompson maintains that the trial court erred in admitting this out-of-court hearsay testimony. We disagree.
“Under OCGA § 24-3-2, conversations had in the course of a legal investigation may be admitted as original evidence to explain the conduct of a law enforcement official provided the conduct involves a matter relеvant to the issue on trial. [Cit.]”
Matthews v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
On April 5, 1993, prior to Thompson’s trial by jury, Poag pled guilty to the offense.