was inconsistent with the large amount of blood at the crime scene. Detective Garretson also testified that an informant told him appellant said she hid her bloody clothes at an abandoned house. The jury had the duty to resolve the conflicting evidence in this case. See Anderson v. State, 701 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). “Simply because the jury found appellant’s evidence unconvincing is not grounds for finding insufficient evidence to support the verdict.” Id. Detective Garretson’s expert testimony discredited appellant’s statements that a third person was present, that she hit the complainant (but did not stab him) and that she was wearing the unstained clothes and shoes at the crime scene. See Barcenes v. State, 940 S.W.2d 739, 745 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>). If the jury believed appellant attempted to
holding evidence that appellant tried to cover up his actions and expert medical testimony discrediting appellants explanation of inju ries was sufficient to sustain murder conviction holding that the uncorroborated testimony of an informant may be sufficient to sustain a conviction holding proof of possession of stolen goods is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for theft recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction