MILLER, P. J., MCFADDEN, P. J., and MCMILLIAN, J.
McFadden, Presiding Judge.
jury trial, Anthony Truong was convicted of robbery, false
imprisonment, battery, and theft by taking. Truong appeals,
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
robbery and false imprisonment charges, the trial court's
refusal to excuse a prospective juror for cause, and the
trial court's jury charge on parties to a crime. But,
there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of
fact was authorized to find Truong guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt of robbery and false imprisonment, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse the juror for
cause, and any presumed error in giving a jury instruction on
parties to a crime was harmless. Therefore, we affirm.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions for robbery and false imprisonment. The claim is
When reviewing a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the jury's verdict, and the defendant no
longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh
the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only
determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier
of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kilby v. State, 289 Ga.App. 457 (1) (657 S.E.2d 567)
(2008) (citations omitted).
viewed, the evidence shows that on March 2, 2014,
Truong's mother, Susan Stokes, invited the victim to her
house. The victim drove his car to Stokes' house, where
he began drinking beer with Stokes. As they drank, the victim
discovered that Stokes had slipped pills into his drinks. A
short time later, Truong attacked the victim, punching him in
the face and knocking him to the ground. As Truong pinned the
victim to the ground, he took the victim's keys, wallet,
and phone from his pockets. Truong then forced the victim
into a sleeping bag on the ground and ordered him not to
leave or call the police, threatening further violence if the
victim disobeyed. Truong left the house, while Stokes and
another man stayed in the same room where the victim was in
the sleeping bag on the floor. When Stokes and the man went
to a different part of the house, the victim escaped. He
discovered that his car was missing and later found that
various items were missing from his house. The victim
reported the incident to the police, who executed a search
warrant at Stokes' house, where they found the
victim's wallet, keys, and GPS device hidden in a hamper
in Truong's bedroom.
viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the
evidence presented at trial and summarized above was
sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find [Truong]
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes [of robbery
and false imprisonment] for which he was found guilty.
[Cits.]" Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864, 867
(1) (792 S.E.2d 695) (2016).
Refusal to excuse prospective juror.
enumerates that the trial court erred in failing to excuse
for cause a prospective juror who had made campaign
contributions to the county sheriff. He argues that this case
is similar to and controlled by Post v. State, 298
Ga. 241 (779 S.E.2d 624) (2015). However, Truong's
reliance on Post is misplaced as that case did not
involve the issue of excusing a juror for cause, but instead
involved recusal of a judge. See id. The law
governing the issue of excusing a juror for cause is
Whether to strike a juror for cause lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court. For a juror to be excused for
cause, it must be shown that he or she holds an opinion of
the guilt or innocence of the defendant that is so fixed and
definite that the juror will be unable to set the opinion
aside and decide the case based upon the evidence or the
court's charge upon the evidence. A prospective
juror's doubt as to his or her own impartiality does not
demand as a matter of law that he or she be excused for
cause. Nor is excusal required when a potential juror
expresses reservations about his or her ability to put aside
personal experiences. A conclusion on an issue of bias is
based on findings of demeanor and credibility which are
peculiarly in the trial court's province, and those
findings are to be given deference.
Brittian v. State, 299 Ga. 706, 708 (3) (791 S.E.2d
810) (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).
case, there is no showing that the prospective juror held any
opinion of Truong's guilt or innocence, let alone an
opinion that was so fixed or definite that he was unable to
set it aside and decide the case based on the evidence and
the court's charge. On the contrary, when questioned by
defense counsel during voir dire about the effect his
relationship with the sheriff might have on his impartiality,
the juror responded, "I don't think it would have
any effect whatsoever." Because the juror's
"response to the [defense counsel's] questions
demonstrated that [he] could set aside [any] opinion and
could decide the case on the evidence, the trial ...