Only where the evidence is insupportable as a matter of law may the jury's verdict be disturbed, even where the evidence is circumstantial.Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga.App. 187, 189 ( 546 SE2d 306) (2001) (citation and punctuation omitted). The evidence in this case was far from overwhelming, nevertheless, we will not disturb the jury's verdict.
To support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need exclude only reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of a defendant's guilt and whether circumstances are sufficient for that purpose was a question for the jury which, here, resolved the conflicts against McMillan. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 SE2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 SE2d 306) (2001); Brown v. State, 245 Ga. App. 706, 709 (1) ( 538 SE2d 788) (2000). The evidence here of theft by taking from Helmac was legally sufficient.
Only where the evidence is unsupportable as a matter of law may the jury's verdict be disturbed, even where the evidence is circumstantial.Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001).Brown v. State, 245 Ga. App. 706, 709 (1) ( 538 S.E.2d 788) (2000).
Further, to support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need only exclude reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001). Whether circumstances were sufficient in this case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt was a question for the jury.
Moreover, as noted below, to support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need only exclude reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001). Whether circumstances were sufficient in this case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt was substantially a question for the jury.