BARNES, P. J., MERCIER and BROWN, JJ.
Motes appeals from the denial of his amended motion for new
trial following his conviction for aggravated cruelty to
animals, criminal damage to property in the second degree,
battery, and criminal trespass. In his sole enumeration of error
on appeal, Motes contends that because the State failed to
prove the amount of damage to the victim's automobile,
insufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal
damage to property in the second degree. For the reasons
explained below, we disagree and affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict and the defendant no
longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh
the evidence nor determine witness credibility, but determine
only whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier
of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
Taliafero v. State, 319 Ga.App. 65, 66 (1) (734
S.E.2d 61) (2012) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560)
(1979)). A jury's verdict will be upheld so long as there
is "some competent evidence, even though contradicted,
to support each fact necessary to make out the State's
case." (Punctuation omitted.) Hartlzer v.
State, 332 Ga.App. 674, 676 (1) (774 S.E.2d 738) (2015).
State charged Motes with criminal damage to property in the
second degree for "intentionally damag[ing the
victim's] automobile . . . by shooting into said
automobile, said damage exceeding $500.00. . . ." Viewed
in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence
shows that during an altercation between the victim on one
side and Motes and his two adult sons on the other, one of
Motes' sons approached the victim's automobile, in
which the victim's dog was enclosed. The son fired four
shots into the automobile, shattering its rear driver-side
window, and killed the dog. Photographs admitted into
evidence show damage to the window, as well as the deceased
dog amidst glass and blood on the back seat. The victim
testified as follows regarding the damage to his automobile:
Q. Was there any damage to the car when Matthew shot the dog?
A. The windows were shot out.
Q. Were the windows intact prior to Matthew shooting them?
A. They were.
Q. Do you recall how much it cost to get that car fixed?
A. It was 1600 less than 400, so they cut a check for like 12
OCGA § 16-7-23 (a) provides that "[a] person
commits the offense of criminal damage to property in the
second degree when he . . . [i]ntentionally damages any
property of another person without his consent and the damage
thereto exceeds $500.00." The value of the damage to the
property "may be established by several means."
Spann v. State, 250 Ga.App. 354, 355 (551 E2d 755)
For example, a lay witness may give opinion testimony as to
such value, subject to stating the factual predicate on which
the opinion is based or otherwise showing that he or she had
the opportunity to form a reliable opinion. Alternatively,
the cost of an item may be sufficient to show the value of
damage to everyday items if supported by other evidence
showing the before and after ...