We affirm. As recounted by this Court in Butler v. State , 310 Ga. 892, 855 S.E.2d 551 (2021), the evidence presented at the joint jury trial showed as follows: On December 15, 2016, a DeKalb County grand jury jointly indicted Poole, Antonio Avery, Clarissa McGhee, and Demarco Butler for the malice murder of Jordan (Count 1), the felony murder of Jordan predicated on aggravated assault (Count 2), the aggravated assaults of Jordan and Chad (Counts 5 & 6), and violating the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act by committing an aggravated assault against Jordan (Count 10).

Specifically, Lofton’s and Sergeant McKay’s testimony showed that gang members were known to commit armed robberies of "johns," and Sergeant McKay testified that the proceeds from armed robberies helped gang members pay their monthly gang dues. See Butler v. State, 310 Ga. 892, 897-898 (1) (b), 855 S.E.2d 551 (2021) (holding that there was sufficient evidence that shootings were committed with an intent to further the gang’s interests where "there was evidence that the gang used prostitution and robbery of ‘johns’ to finance the gang and that the shootings resulted from that sort of activity"); Stripling v. State, 304 Ga. 131, 134 (1) (b), 816 S.E.2d 663 (2018) (holding that there was sufficient evidence that the crime was intended to further the gang’s interests where "[a] gang expert testified that the gang ma[de] most of its money through armed robberies, including robberies of drug dealers like" the one at issue in the case). Accordingly, this claim of error fails.

As to the fourth prong, "[t]his element requires some nexus between the act and the intent to further street gang activity." Butler v. State , 310 Ga. 892, 896-897 (1) (b), 855 S.E.2d 551 (2021) (citation omitted). "The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction."

(1) the existence of a "criminal street gang," defined in OCGA § 16-15-3 (3) as "any organization, association, or group of three or more persons associated in fact, whether formal or informal, which engages in criminal gang activity"; (2) the defendant's association with the gang; (3) that the defendant committed any of several enumerated criminal offenses, including those "involving violence, possession of a weapon, or use of a weapon"; and (4) that the crime was intended to further the interests of the gang. Butler v. State , 310 Ga. 892, 896-97 (1) (b), 855 S.E.2d 551 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). The fourth element requires that the State prove "some nexus between the act and the intent to further street gang activity." Id.

Likewise, we allow the jury to decide whether the defense theory was reasonable and not excluded by the other evidence." Butler v. State, 310 Ga. 892, 895 (1), 855 S.E.2d 551 (2021) (citations and punctuation omitted). The jury could infer from the circumstantial evidence presented at trial that between January 16 and January 25, McCloud caused the broken clavicle and other fractures alleged in Counts 1 and 15, and that between January 31 and February 6, McCloud caused the fractures, bruises, and scratches alleged in Count 17.

Our "current Evidence Code - unlike the former Code - does not generally prohibit lay witness testimony on 'ultimate issue' grounds." Butler v. State, 310 Ga. 892, 899 (3) (855 S.E.2d 551) (2021). See OCGA § 24-7-704 (a) ("Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible shall not be objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.").

These were clearly relevant to prove the Gang Act count and were not unduly prejudicial even if they showed Tucker with guns. See OCGA § 1615-3 (3) (providing that existence of a street gang "may be established by evidence of a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, tattoos, graffiti, or attire or other distinguishing characteristics"); Butler v. State, 310 Ga. 892, 898 (2) (855 (S.E.2d 551) (2021) (admitted evidence of gang participation and other gang-related testimony was not unfairly prejudicial and was "highly probative [and] indeed necessary to prove several essential elements of the Street Gang Act offense - the existence of the gang, [defendant's] participation therein, and the nexus between the crimes and the gang's interest"); Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 248 (13) (794 S.E.2d 67) (2016) ("Because the photographs depicted, among other things, the type of signs, symbols, and clothing worn by the [ ] gang, which the State had the burden to prove, the photographs were admissible.")