Court Opinion

ID: 9616223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:44:26.10372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:56.197477
License: Public Domain

On motion for rehearing.
MacIntyre, P. J.
The defendant in one ground of his motion for a rehearing, relative to his contention that the evidence did not authorize the verdict, states that we have overlooked the testimony of witnesses on cross-examination and the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of certain witnesses. “ ‘A jury in arriving at a conclusion upon disputed issues of fact may believe a part of the testimony of a witness or witnesses, and reject another part theref, it being their duty to ascertain the truth of the case from the opinion they entertain of all the evidence submitted for their consideration.’ (citing)—the jury could reject such testimony of these witnesses delivered under their cross-examination, and accept the testimony of such witnesses delivered under their direct examination, and could consider such testimony along with the circumstantial evidence, and if they did so, would be authorized to find the defendants guilty.” Peeler v. State, 83 Ga. App. 102, 105 (62 S. E. 2d, 750). It seems to us that the defendant in his motion for a rehearing ignored or overlooked the rule that jurors are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, and that the jury may select what parts or part of the evidence they will in arriving at a conclusion upon disputed *158issues of fact, even.though that part of the evidence the jury may choose to believe is contradictory or inconsistent with other parts of the testimony of the same witnesses, and may make up their verdict accordingly. Peeler v. State, supra.
This and all other matters in the motion having been considered, the motion for rehearing is denied.

Rehearing denied.

Sutton, C. J., Gardner and Worrill, JJ., concur. Felton and Townsend, JJ., dissent.