DocketNumber: A92A2429
Judges: Johnson
Filed Date: 2/10/1993
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/8/2024
Carl Andre Scott appeals from his convictions of aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, rape and child molestation. Scott argues that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence because of conflicts in the testimony.
“It is the function of the jury to determine the credibility of the. witnesses. The jurors must weigh and resolve any conflicts presented by the evidence. The appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” (Citation and punctuation
Scott presented a pediatric nurse who testified that her examination of the 12-year-old victim showed that it was unlikely that there had been any penile penetration of her vagina. The victim’s brother testified that his sister lied and that she had never told him about any abuse by their father. Scott’s sister-in-law testified that the victim said that she had been molested by someone, but denied that it had been her father. Scott denied that he ever molested his daughter.
Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Scott guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). The trial court did not err in denying Scott’s motion for a new trial.