speaking from her own perspective as a victim, the jury was authorized to view the phrase differently. Furthermore, the jury was authorized to infer that penetration occurred from Ms. Wright’s testimony that, during the third time that Martin “started to have sex” with her, he was unable to “keep an erection” (emphasis supplied), because that phrase suggests that he had an erection at first in that third incident as well as suggests that his difficulty in the third incident contrasted with his performance in the two earlier incidents. We conclude that the evidence of penetration was sufficient. See Payne v. State, 231 Ga. 755, 755 (1) (204 SE2d 128) (1974) (“In a rape case, penetration may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence.”). See also Jackson, 443 U. S. at 319 (III) (B) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we address Martin’s argument that,
holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a proper review of the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts holding agency may not reject an aljs findings of fact which are supported by competent substantial evidence nor is it authorized to reweigh the evidence resolve conflicts in testimony draw inferences judge eredibili ty of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt