"Such matters are left to the sound discretion of the trial court." (Punctuation omitted) Rowland v. State , 228 Ga.App. 66, 68 (2), 491 S.E.2d 119 (1997). As an appellate court, our review is limited to determining whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law.
Etheridge v. State, 210 Ga. App. 96, 98 (1) ( 435 SE2d 292) (1993). See also Hazelrigs v. State, 255 Ga. App. 784, 786-787 (2) ( 567 SE2d 79) (2002) (trial counsel not ineffective in declining to call witness whose testimony might be favorable to defense, when witness' testimony nevertheless "would still expose material potentially harmful to the defense"); Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 70 (3) (e) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997) (trial counsel's decision not to call witnesses did not constitute ineffective assistance, "[i]n view of their limited value" to the defense). Here, the transcript from the first trial reveals that W. C.'s mother would have testified that Tyler was never left alone with W. C. Yet, the mother admitted that there were times when she was outside of Tyler and W. C.'s presence, such as when she would take a shower.
Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 316, 317(1)(b), 737 S.E.2d 677 (2013). See also Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460(1), 128 S.E.2d 496 (1962) (the argument that the verdict is contrary to “the principles of justice and equity” is also solely in the discretion of the trial court) (citations omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds; Ga. Power Co. v. Slappey, 121 Ga.App. 534, 536(3), 174 S.E.2d 361 (1970); Rowland v. State, 228 Ga.App. 66, 68(2), 491 S.E.2d 119 (1997) (same). Instead, when an appellant asks this court to review either a lower court's refusal to grant a new trial or its refusal to grant a motion for a directed verdict, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Rowland v. State. See Armstrong v. State ("[a]bsent a written request for a charge on a lesser[-] included offense [of battery], made at or before the close of the evidence, the failure to so charge is not error") (punctuation omitted). Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 67-68 (1) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997).Armstrong v. State, 292 Ga. App. 145, 147 (2) ( 664 SE2d 242) (2008).
Silvers v. State, 278 Ga. 45, 48 (3) ( 597 SE2d 373) (2004).Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 70 (3) (e) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997). (c) The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause prohibits the introduction of hearsay evidence concerning testimonial statements made by a third party, "over a defendant's objection[,] where the defendant has had no previous opportunity for cross-examination" of that third party.
Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605, 606 ( 409 SE2d 513) (1991).Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 68 (1) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997).Judgment affirmed.
Henderson v. State, 141 Ga. App. 430 (4) ( 233 SE2d 505) (1977).Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 68 (1) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997). 3.
'" Warren v. State, 281 Ga. App. 490, 491 (2) ( 636 SE2d 671) (2006). See Harris v. State, 274 Ga. 422, 427-428 (9) ( 554 SE2d 458) (2001); Dewberry v. State, 271 Ga. 624, 625 (2) ( 523 SE2d 26) (1999); Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 70 (3) (e) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997). (d) Espinosa argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to sever his trial from Anderson's. He asserts that evidence of Anderson's guilt was stronger than evidence showing his guilt; that merely being tried with Anderson — the person identified by the clerk as the gunman who took money from her — tainted him; and that Anderson's defense based upon mistaken identity was "preposterous" and compromised his defense based upon lack of intent.
Therefore, we hold that the difference between the allegata and the probata was not a fatal variance, because Lawson was sufficiently informed of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare an adequate defense, and he faces no danger of further prosecution arising out of the incident. See Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 67 ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997). See Battles, supra; Mitchell, supra.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Rowland v. State, 228 Ga. App. 66, 68 (2) ( 491 SE2d 119) (1997). "[I]t is the function of the trial court at the hearing on the motion for new trial to determine witness credibility and to resolve any conflicts in the testimony.