Brooks v. State
Opinion
The appellant, Michael Brooks, appeals from his conviction for the murder of Terrence Smith, and for the aggravated assault of Ernest Carson.1 On appeal, the sole issue raised by Brooks is that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for malice murder. However, having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence would have authorized a rational trier of fact to reject Brooks’s testimony that he acted in self-[355]*355defense and to find that Brooks acted with malice in shooting Smith three times while he lay on a sofa. Accordingly, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Brooks guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the malice murder of Smith.2 Similarly, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Brooks’s conviction for the aggravated assault of Carson.3
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
554 S.E.2d 151 (Brooks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.