Whether a hypothesis is reasonable is a question for the [factfinder], and such finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless the guilty verdict is insupportable as a matter of law.(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999). Given the evidence presented, especially Hickman's repeated use of a deadly weapon to attempt to force the victim to get inside the car, the trial court, as the factfinder, was authorized to conclude that Hickman rejected the car keys when the victim offered them simply because it was his intent to abscond with both the car and the victim.

(Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga. App. 164, 165 (1) ( 526 SE2d 361) (1999). Moreover, "[a] jury is authorized to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of witnesses, and it serves as the arbiter of conflicts in the evidence before it."

As we have explained, intent is a mental state that is often difficult to prove directly and, consequently, must be inferred from the circumstances. Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga. App. 164, 165 (1) ( 526 SE2d 361) (1999). A factfinder may infer that a person acted with criminal intent based upon the "words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is prosecuted."

(Citation omitted.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 166(2), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999) (evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of simple battery under OCGA § 16–5–23(a)(1) when defendant “repeatedly kicked, slapped, and grabbed his wife[,]” as well as “nudged” her with his foot and tried to “control” her by grabbing her arm to prevent her from leaving). Here, we cannot say that there was a fatal variance.

(Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999).(i) First, the record shows that Kirchner did not argue this alternative explanation of the contents of the baggies to the jury during closing arguments.

(Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999). Ultimately, “[a]s long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State's case, the jury's verdict will be upheld.”

Whether a hypothesis is reasonable is a question for the jury, and such finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless the guilty verdict is insupportable as a matter of law. (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga.App. 164, 165(1), 526 S.E.2d 361 (1999). See also Wood v. State, 300 Ga.App. 674, 676, 686 S.E.2d 319 (2009) (“[C]riminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, during and after the offense.

" (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga. App. 164, 165 (1) ( 526 S.E.2d 361) (1999). Given the evidence presented in this case, the jury was authorized to find that Hughes was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as either the actual perpetrator or as a party to the crime, of the offense of trafficking in methamphetamine as charged in the indictment.

" (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga. App. 164, 165 (1) ( 526 SE2d 361) (1999). "Possession of contraband may be joint or exclusive, and actual or constructive. A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is in actual possession of it."

As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the state's case, this Court will uphold the jury's verdict.Eberhart v. State, 241 Ga. App. 164 ( 526 SE2d 361) (1999).Odett v. State, 273 Ga. 353, 353-354 (1) ( 541 SE2d 29) (2001).