Escoe v. State

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

William Thomas Escoe appeals his burglary conviction, contending that the circumstantial evidence against him was insufficient and that the trial court erred in allowing certain expert testimony. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the verdict, and no longer presume the defendant is innocent. We do not weigh the evidence or decide the witnesses’ credibility, but only determine if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. Brown v. State, 293 Ga. App. 633 (667 SE2d 899) (2008). We construe…