A trial court cannot choose to deny a meritorious motion for a directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of the State's case. "[I]t constitutes reversible error for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict of acquittal where there is absolutely no conflict in the evidence and the verdict of acquittal is demanded as a matter of law. [Cit.]" Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 373-374 (1) ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). See also Bethay v. State, supra and Walls v. State, 161 Ga. App. 625, 626 (1) ( 288 S.E.2d 769) (1982), holding that an appellate court will consider all of the evidence, including that introduced by the defendant, in determining whether the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence was error.

Thus the safeguards afforded by the Jackson v. Virginia standard of review are preserved and implemented. See, e.g., Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). The foregoing analysis makes it clear that the traditional "any evidence" standard for review of denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is derived from the statute itself and merely states affirmatively ("any") what is couched in negative terms ("no") in the statute.

Murray v. State, 295 Ga. 289 , 290-291 (759 SE2d 525 ) (2014) (citing Black v. State, 261 Ga. 791 , 796 (10) (410 SE2d 740 ) (1991)). See also Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 , 374-375 (219 SE2d 743 ) (1975) (overruled on other grounds Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525 (1) (314 SE2d 436 ) (1984)) (“We therefore hold that on appeal of the overruling of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case in chief, the reviewing court can consider all the evidence in the case in determining whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion.”).

OCGA § 16-1-8 (d). OCGA § 16-1-8; Prater, et al. v. State, 273 Ga. 477, 480-81 ( 545 S.E.2d 864) (2001); Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). See Georgia Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XVIII; United States Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments.

OCGA § 16-1-8(d) OCGA § 16-1-8; Bethay v. The State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). See Georgia Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XVIII; United States Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments.

The question was not only overbroad, Jenkins v. State, 157 Ga. App. 310 (3) ( 277 S.E.2d 304) (1981), but it also would have forced the prospective jurors to prejudge the case, and it involved technical or abstract legal matters. Curry v. State, 255 Ga. 215 (2) ( 336 S.E.2d 762) (1985); Wilcox v. State, 250 Ga. 745 (6) ( 301 S.E.2d 251) (1983); Gatlin v. State, 236 Ga. 707 (2) ( 225 S.E.2d 224) (1976); Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 (4) ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). 4. When a state's witness was asked during her testimony when she last saw the victim alive, she replied, "The day she was murdered.

The evidence is not wholly circumstantial in that there was direct evidence that the defendant killed the victim. The state on the other hand urges that the test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence in response to a motion for directed verdict is the "any evidence" test, citing Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 376 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). Bethay was decided prior to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 ( 99 S.C. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).

It should be kept in mind that the larger purpose of the Code section is to enable counsel to identify those prospective jurors counsel desires to remove from the panel by use of peremptory strikes as opposed to challenges for cause. Referring to this Code section in Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371, 377 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975), we said that it "... is generally considered as permitting a broad range of questions in examination of prospective jurors. We should keep the Code section in mind however, as opposed to the generalization.

The standard used by this court in reviewing the overruling of each of these motions is the same; i.e., the "any evidence" test. Sheppard v. State, 235 Ga. 89 ( 218 S.E.2d 830) (1975); Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). If the verdict as rendered can be sustained under any reasonable view of the evidence submitted to the jury, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal. A review of the record in this case presents evidence that would authorize a jury to find that the appellant had been arguing with his wife immediately prior to the time she was shot; that appellant was angry because he believed his wife was becoming too friendly with another man; that appellant had to be restrained from confronting this other man; and that appellant was holding the weapon when it discharged, shooting his wife once in the neck.

Merino v. State, 230 Ga. 604 ( 198 S.E.2d 311) (1973). A verdict of guilty should be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it. Bethay v. State, 235 Ga. 371 ( 219 S.E.2d 743) (1975). The statement by the appellant and the corroborating evidence are sufficient to meet the "any evidence" test.