Alejandro Rivera was tried and convicted of malice murder and
related offenses in connection with the February 2008
shooting death of Mark Martin. Rivera appeals, alleging that the
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that
the trial court committed reversible error. We affirm.
in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the
evidence adduced at trial shows that, on February 24, 2008, a
group of people, including Rivera and Manuel, traveled to the
apartment of George and Robinson to purchase
drugs. Rivera and Manuel obtained money from
their traveling companions and then headed into the apartment
to complete the drug purchase. Rivera and Manuel were
welcomed inside by Martin and George. The men walked into
Robinson's bedroom, and the group smoked marijuana. At
some point, Rivera approached George and asked if he could
rob Martin. George said no and then left the apartment to go
to his girlfriend's residence.
returned to Robinson's bedroom where the two engaged in a
quiet conversation; the men bumped fists, and then Robinson
took a .38 caliber revolver from the top of his dresser and
passed it over to Rivera. Shortly thereafter, Rivera made his
way into the living room where Martin was sitting on the
couch. Manuel heard Martin say "hold up hold up,"
after which he saw Rivera shoot Martin in the back as Martin
was attempting to run away. George, who was still in the
parking lot, heard a gunshot. As he drove away, he saw Rivera
and Manuel running out of his apartment.
and Manuel shoved their way into the car with their waiting
companions and drove away. Though the men did not mention a
robbery or a shooting on the drive, when the group reached
their final destination, Rivera handed each individual drugs,
including cocaine, pills, and marijuana.
meantime, Robinson called George and stated that he had fled
the apartment after Rivera had shot Martin. George picked
Robinson up at a gas station and the two headed back to their
apartment. There, they found Martin laying on the floor,
unresponsive. The men moved the victim's body into a
bedroom and got rid of a .32 caliber gun that was not
involved in the shooting before calling police.
officers responded, they located the victim's body under
a mattress in a bedroom. Martin had suffered a gunshot wound
to the back; he had cocaine, marijuana, and $310 in his
pockets. Officers also located marijuana in the living room
area, marijuana in George's pocket, and an unloaded .32
caliber gun outside the front entrance of the apartment.
Officers swabbed Robinson's and George's hands and
testing later revealed the presence of trace amounts of
gunshot residue. A GBI forensic analyst determined that the
presence of such a small amount of gunshot residue was
consistent with the transfer of residue from Martin to
Robinson and George as they moved the victim's body, and
inconsistent with either of them being the shooter.
and George were arrested at the scene, and Manuel voluntarily
turned himself in to the police shortly thereafter. All three
men were interviewed by officers. Initially, the men lied
about their knowledge of the shooting; however, all three
eventually made incriminating statements and identified
Rivera as the sole shooter.
an autopsy, a bullet was recovered from the victim's body
and turned over to the GBI for further analysis. The GBI
firearms examiner concluded that the bullet did not come from
the .32 caliber weapon recovered from the scene, and further
determined that that bullet could only have been fired from a
.38 special or a .357 magnum revolver.
the shooting, Rivera went to his girlfriend's house,
where he was visibly upset and crying; he told her that
something had happened and that they needed to leave. She
refused and asked him to leave. After this, Rivera headed to
his estranged cousin's house. When Rivera arrived, he was
not acting like himself. He washed some clothes and even
spent the night, which he had never done before. The next
day, Rivera asked his cousin to drive him to a friend's
house. The cousin agreed; when Rivera exited the vehicle, he
asked his cousin to pray for his family and then walked in
the opposite direction of his supposed final destination.
Rivera later fled to Florida with his girlfriend, where he
was eventually arrested.
Rivera alleges that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to sustain his convictions because his
convictions were based solely upon circumstantial evidence.
well established that when this Court evaluates the
sufficiency of evidence, the proper standard for review is
whether a rational trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d
560) (1979). "This Court does not reweigh evidence or
resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed
in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to
the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of
the evidence." (Punctuation and citation omitted.)
Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506, 506 (739 S.E.2d 313)
(2013). Moreover, a "reviewing court must consider all
of the evidence admitted by the trial court, regardless [of]
whether that evidence was admitted erroneously."
(Punctuation and citations omitted.) Kemp v. State,
303 Ga. 385, 388 (810 S.E.2d 515) (2018).
to Rivera's assertion, the record shows that the State
presented both circumstantial and direct evidence at trial,
as Rivera was identified as the shooter by two different
witnesses, which is direct evidence of Rivera's guilt.
See Nance v. State, 239 Ga. 381 (1) (236 S.E.2d 752)
(1977). Reviewing all of the evidence presented at trial in a
light most favorable to the jury's verdicts, we find that
the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of
fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Rivera was
guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. See
also argues that, because the accomplice testimony of Manuel
and George was not sufficiently corroborated, his convictions
cannot stand. Once again, we disagree. Former OCGA §
24-4-8 required corroboration of accomplice