Rheakdsy Mike Yat was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony arising out of the shooting death of Hieu Tran. 1 Because we find the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions and no merit in the remaining errors, we affirm.
Evidence adduced at trial established that appellant is a member of a gang called “Asian Gangster Crips” (“AGC”). On January
1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict because the biased testimony of other gang members and the weak circumstantial evidence were insufficient to warrant a conviction for felony murder. However, the credibility of the witnesses was a determination to be made by the jury, including whether the deals made by other gang members with the
State rendered their testimony biased to a degree that left them less creditworthy. See generally
Brown v. State,
2. Given the connection established by the State between appellant’s affiliation with AGC and the shooting of the victim, we find no error in the trial court’s admission of evidence of appellant’s involvement in a gang.
Mallory v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred January 9, 2000. Yat was indicted with Vandara Ros and Albert Kim Tran on March 31, 2000 in Gwinnett County on charges of malice murder, felony murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. Yat was found guilty of felony murder and the possession charge on June 22, 2001 and was sentenced June 25, 2001 to life imprisonment with a consecutive five-year probated sentence for the firearm possession charge. Yat’s motion for new trial, filed July 13, 2001, was denied October 13, 2004. His notice of appeal was filed November 12, 2004. His appeal, docketed in this Court on February 23, 2005, was submitted for decision on the briefs.
Ros and Tran were tried together. Ros was convicted of malice murder; Tran was convicted of felony murder. Both men were convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. This Court affirmed those convictions in
Ros v. State,
