we will not disturb the jury’s finding unless the verdict is insupportable as a matter of law. Id. Decided June 11, 2014. Trotter Jones, James S. V. Weston, for appellant. Ashley Wright, District Attorney, Titus T. Nichols, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. Here, the circumstantial evidence demonstrated that Stokes’ DNA was on a cigarette butt found in the victim’s home with no explanation of any other reason it would be there, that Stokes was in the area of the burglary during the time period, that his clothing was wet and muddy when he was in the neighbor’s yard, and that some of the recovered items were also wet. This combined evidence was sufficient to support Stokes’ conviction under Jackson, 443 U. S. 307. See Marion v. State, 276 Ga. App. 553, 554 (623 SE2d 739) (2005) (<HOLDING>). “[Circumstantial evidence must exclude only
holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction holding that a conviction under a divisible statute could not qualify as acca burglary pursuant to the modified categorical approach when there were no shepard documents to show that the crime of conviction was generic burglary holding the trial court properly denied defendants motion for judgment of acquittal although defendant offered evidence as to how his fingerprints were placed on a candy box found at the scene of the crime holding that fingerprint evidence was insufficient to support a murder conviction in a case in which the prosecution depended upon a showing that defendants fingerprints were left on the murder weapon during the commission of the crime holding that defendants fingerprints atthe scene of the crime which were otherwise unexplained combined with circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support burglary conviction