Where, as here, we are left to speculate regarding the jury’s rationale, the verdict will be deemed inconsistent rather than repugnant. See Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 415, 423 (1), 878 S.E.2d 751 (2022). Accordingly, this argument presents no basis for reversal.

OCGA §16-4-1.See Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 415, 420 (1), 878 S.E.2d 751 (2022). When evaluating the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the proper standard of review is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Where, as here, we are left to speculate regarding the jury's rationale, the verdict will be deemed inconsistent rather than repugnant. See Wright v. State, 365 Ga.App. 415, 423 (1) (878 S.E.2d 751) (2022). Accordingly, this argument presents no basis for reversal.

"To the extent [Rider] asks this Court to review the merits of the trial court's exercise of its discretion as the thirteenth juror, we decline to do so; this Court does not sit as an arbiter of the general grounds, which are solely within the discretion of the trial court." Wright v. State , 365 Ga. App. 415, 424 (2), 878 S.E.2d 751 (2022) (punctuation omitted), quoting Wilson v. State , 302 Ga. 106, 109 (II) (d), 805 S.E.2d 98 (2017). Consequently, Rider has failed to show a valid ground for reversal.