Rankin v. State
| Decision Date | 22 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. S04A1687.,S04A1687. |
| Citation | 606 S.E.2d 269,278 Ga. 704 |
| Parties | RANKIN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Renate D. Moody, Macon, for appellant.
Howard Z. Simms, Dist. Atty., Dorothy V. Hull, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Robin J. Leigh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Mary Belle Rankin was convicted of felony murder and aggravated assault of her husband, Willie Rankin. She appeals from the denial of her motion for new trial,1 contending in her sole enumeration that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The jury was authorized to find that after appellant and the victim exchanged blows while in Brown's car, appellant (the driver of the car) pulled into a shallow parking lot adjacent to a church. Brown and the victim exited the car. The victim began hitting at appellant through the window and before Brown could get her out of his car, appellant drove away, striking the church building and another vehicle. Shortly thereafter appellant returned in the car with three passengers, a woman and two men. She dropped off her passengers after telling the two men "there he is." One eyewitness then saw appellant strike the victim with the front of the car, back up striking him again with the rear of the car, and drive off. Other witnesses saw the two men beating and stomping the victim; the pastor at the church testified that the victim was already on the ground when the two men began their assault. The medical examiner testified that the victim died from blunt force head trauma consistent with being struck by a vehicle and that the force of the fatal blow would most likely have left the victim unconscious or unable to walk around.
Appellant testified at trial that she although she drove near to her husband, she never hit him with the car and that he was walking away when her son and her daughter's boyfriend attacked him without any encouragement from her.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and an appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. This Court determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74(1), 597 S.E.2d 332 (2004). Any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence are for the jury to resolve. Mickens v. State, 277 Ga. 627, 629, 593 S.E.2d 350 (2004)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. State
...to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, we must uphold the jury's verdict.” (Citation omitted.) Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704, 705, 606 S.E.2d 269 (2004). A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is in actual possession of it. A per......
-
Whatley v. State
...443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).3 443 U.S. at 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781.4 Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704, 705, 606 S.E.2d 269 (2004) (citations omitted).5 Clark v. State, 275 Ga. 220, 221 (1), 564 S.E.2d 191 (2002).6 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I,......
-
Walker v. The State
...necessary to make out the [s]tate's case, we must uphold the jury's verdict.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rankin v. State, 278 Ga. 704, 705, 606 S.E.2d 269 (2004). With these principles in mind, we turn to the facts of this case, which centered on the robbery of two separate finance ......
-
Williams v. State
...(1); 16-11-131 (b).2 See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ; Rankin v. State , 278 Ga. 704, 705, 606 S.E.2d 269 (2004).3 443 U. S. at 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781.4 Walker v. State , 329 Ga. App. 369, 370, 765 S.E.2d 599 (2014) (punctua......