Defendant was tried before a jury and found guilty of burglary and aggravated assault. This appeal followed the denial of defendant's motion for new trial. Held:
1. Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his burglary conviction and argues that his accomplice's testimony "should have been given no credibility by the trial jury . . ." and that "[t]he only other evidence introduced at trial which placed [him] inside the [victim's] residence . . . was the presence of the stolen weapons in the automobile which was occupied by both [defendant] and [the accomplice]."
"In Georgia, a defendant may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. OCGA 24-4-8
(Code Ann. 38-121). The corroboration must be independent of the accomplice's testimony and it must connect the defendant to the crime or lead to the inference that he is guilty. Allen v. State, 215 Ga. 455 (111 SE2d 70) (1959)
. 'However, the corroborating evidence need not of itself be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime charged. (Cit.) Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in the criminal act is sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support the verdict. (Cit.)' Reaves v. State, 242 Ga. 542
, 543 (250 SE2d 376
) (1978)." Castell v. State, 250 Ga. 776
, 778 (1c), 780 (301 SE2d 234
Further, we have reviewed the trial transcript and find more than sufficient evidence to authorize the jury's finding that defendant was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of burglary as alleged in the indictment. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560); Adams v. State, 255 Ga. 356
, 357 (1) (338 SE2d 860
2. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to authorize his conviction for aggravated assault because "the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that [he] 'intended' to make an assault upon the [victim]." More specifically, defendant argues that his testimony that he shot at the victim to defend himself and his testimony that he is familiar with weapons, along with "the fact that [there] was a lone shot to the front grille of the [victim's] automobile rather than a shot to the windshield area of the car shows that he did not intend to harm the [victim], rather that he fired merely to scare [the victim]."
In the case sub judice, the jury was authorized to reject defendant's claim of self defense and defendant's explanation for hitting the grille of the victim's car instead of the windshield. McClendon v. State, 187 Ga. App. 666
, 667, supra. Further, the victim's testimony that defendant shot at him with a rifle, evidence that a bullet hit the victim's automobile and evidence that defendant was in possession of the victim's rifle was sufficient to sustain the jury's finding that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of aggravated assault as alleged in the indictment. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, supra; Adams v. State, 255 Ga. 356
, 357 (1), supra.
David E. Perry, District Attorney, Howard B. Buchanan, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.