under the federal due process standard. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). Specifically, he asserts that the in-court identifications of him by Bar 009) (“ £It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.’ ” (citation omitted)). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational jury to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted, either directly or as a party to Lavant’s criminal conduct. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. at 319; OCGA § 16-2-20 (parties to crime); State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646, 652-653 (697 SE2d 757) (2010) (<HOLDING>). Decided September 14, 2015. Douglas P. Smith,
holding that a defendant may be convicted of felony murder when the death of his accomplice was a reasonably foreseeable result of their commission of a felony holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that for facilitation of a felony the state must prove the commission of a specified felony and the assistance the accused gave to the person committing the specified felony