Appellant John Henry Williams appeals his judgment of conviction of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime, and the sentence. His sole enumeration of error is insufficiency of the evidence.
Appellant in essence asserts that because the victim and an eyewitness testified the victim held his ground while being shot at three or four times, and because the bullets missed the victim although fired at very close range, this testimony precludes the State from establishing appellant had an intent to injure the victim. Appellant also asserts that because of this evidence the State failed to establish the victim was in any apprehension of receiving injury. The evidence establishes that appellant fired three or four times at the victim and the bullets passed on either side of the victim and did not strike him; during this time, the victim held his ground and continued to argue with appellant. The victim testified that appellant pulled the gun out, pointed it at him, and shot at him; he was aware a bullet could inflict great bodily injury upon him; and at the time of the incident, the victim did not know what to think regarding whether appellant intentionally was trying to shoot him or just to shoot by him. The eyewitness, who continued to pump gas into his car during the incident, testified he was so scared that he left the soft drink he had purchased at the store when he departed; he believes appellant was trying to scare
“ ‘The offense of aggravated assault has two essential elements: (1) that an
assault, as defined in OCGA § 16-5-20
be committed on the victim;
and
(2) that it was aggravated by (a) an intention to murder, rape, or to rob,
or
(b) use of a deadly weapon.’ [Cit.] OCGA § 16-5-20 states: (a) a person commits the offense of
simple assault
when he
either:
(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;
or
(2) Commits an
act
which places another in
reasonable apprehension
of immediately receiving a violent injury.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Knox v. State,
Appellant was indicted, inter alia, on a count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which averred that he did “wilfully make an assault upon the person [of the victim] with a certain handgun, same being a deadly weapon. Said act did take place ... in Thomas-ville, Georgia.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Pretermitting whether the indictment could be construed to include an averment of a simple assault by an attempt to commit violent injury is that the averment adequately includes the averment of an assault upon the victim by the act of using a handgun.
The state of mind of either a perpetrator or a victim, including whether a victim has been placed under reasonable apprehension of injury or fear from an event,
when in issue
may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence. See generally OCGA § 24-1-1 (4); see
Conklin v. State,
“Intent to injure is not an element of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In describing the distinction between the misdemeanor offense of pointing a firearm at another (OCGA § 16-11-102) and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2) ), the Georgia Supreme Court declared, ‘if the pointing of the firearm placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury, the felony of aggravated assault has occurred.’
Rhodes v. State,
In this case, the trial court charged the jury that “to constitute an assault in this state, actual injury to the other person need not be shown. It is only necessary that the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt an intention to commit injury on another person coupled with the apparent ability to commit that injury and that the other person was placed in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. . . . Now a person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he assaults another person with a deadly weapon.” As appellant took no exception to this charge, has asserted no charging error on appeal, and as the charge is favorable to him, we need not and do not address its accuracy. Suffice it to say, the trial court placed both the issues of intent of appellant and state of mind of the victim in the hands of the jury, and they found appellant guilty as charged.
On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.
Grant v. State,
Judgment affirmed.