A Cobb County jury convicted Christopher Howard Whitehill of burglary and aggravated assault with intent to rape. On appeal, he contends that insufficient evidence of intent exists to support his convictions. We disagree and affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Redd v. State,
Conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses, including the State’s witnesses, are a matter of credibility for the jury to *268 resolve. As long as there is some cоmpetent evidence, even though contradicted, to support eаch fact necessary to make out the State’s case, the jury’s verdict will be upheld.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Jackson v. State,
Construed to uphold the jury’s verdict, the evidence reveals that on August 18, 1998, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Whitehill rang the doorbell of a home owned by Sylvia Urrutta and her husband. The victim, Mrs. Urrutta’s housekeeper, was alone in the house. She lоoked through a side window and saw Whitehill, whom she recognized as having performеd yard work in the area. The victim, who is Hispanic and speaks little English, testified through an interpreter that she opened the door “a little bit.” Whitehill asked to speаk with the homeowner. When the victim indicated no one was home, Whitehill forced his way inside and knocked the victim to the ground. Whitehill pinned the victim with his knee and pullеd up her shirt and bra. The victim testified that Whitehill tried to unbutton her pants as well as his own trоusers. As they struggled on the floor, Whitehill struck the victim repeatedly. Finally, the victim spied a golf club, grabbed it, and swung at Whitehill. She missed, but he fled.
The victim called a bilingual friend, who called the police. Officer Jerald Hood responded. He testified that when he arrived at the Urrutta residence, the victim was trembling, breathing rapidly, аnd tearful. Through an interpreter, the victim explained the attack and desсribed her assailant. The officer noted golf clubs in the foyer. Mrs. Urrutta testified that she returned home while the police were there. Mrs. Urrutta attested to the bruises on her housekeeper’s body.
Whitehill testified at trial. He claimed that the viсtim permitted him to enter the foyer. Whitehill also claimed that the victim was provocatively dressed and made sexual advances toward him. The defendant testified that the victim grabbed his waist; he pushed her away, she fell, and he left, closing the door behind him.
In his sole enumeration of error, Whitehill contends that the evidеnce of intent to rape is insufficient to support his convictions. Intent to rаpe is an essential element of both the burglary and aggravated assault сharges against Whitehill. The indictment charged him with committing burglary by entering Mrs. Urrutta’s home without authority and with the intent to commit rape. See OCGA § 16-7-1 (a). Similarly, he was charged with assaulting the victim with intent to rape by removing her clothing. See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1).
Intent to rape may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Mangham v. State,
It is not necessary for the State to show that appellant *269 expressed an intеnt to rape in so many words, or declared a purpose to carry the intent into effect, for the jury to arrive at the conclusion he so intended. Thе intention may be gathered from the circumstances of the case as proved. Whether appellant intended to rape the victim was a matter for the jury to determine and, as a general rule, the State must of necessity rеly upon circumstantial evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Butler v. State,
Judgment affirmed.