Wilson v. StateWilson v. State
A Richmond County jury convicted Kevin Wilson of terroristic threats, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, giving a false name to a law enforcement officer, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court sentenced Wilson to ten years, with five to be served in confinement and the balance on probation. On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, Wilson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of terroristic threats and that, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for *264 possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. We affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, the record reflects that on March 4, 2005, at approximately 2:45 a.m., Tobian Norris was leaving the drive-thru lane at McDonald’s on Washington Road when he narrowly missed colliding with a car in the parking lot. The driver of the vehicle became agitated. Norris pulled up next to her car and told her to “chill the F out[,]” and Wilson, a passenger in the vehicle, pulled out a black and silver handgun, cocked it, and started to open the car door. Norris drove to a gas station across the street and called police. At trial, Norris identified Wilson as the man who threatened him with a gun.
Deputy Ryan Brockman of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office responded to the gas station, where Norris described the incident and told him that Wilson and his companion were still in the drive-thru line waiting for their order. Brockman went over to the restaurant, searched the vehicle pointed out by Norris, and discovered a loaded silver handgun in a purse behind the driver’s seat. Wilson told Brockman that his name was Kevin Epps.
1. Wilson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of making terroristic threats because Norris’s testimony was uncorroborated. We disagree.
2. Wilson contends that since Norris’s testimony was uncorroborated, there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, which was based on the act of making terroristic threats. Given our finding in Division 1, this claim lacks merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Nelson v. State,
(Footnote omitted.)
Pringle v. State,
See, e.g.,
In the Interest of M. V. H.,