§ 17-8-75 did not contribute to the verdicts.” Decided June 3, 2013 Jennifer A. Trieshmann, for appellant. Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney, C. Jephson Bendinger, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. Given the circumstances of this case, the trial court committed no reversible error in denying Ogletree’s motion for a mistrial. Neither Tyler v. State nor Coleman v. State, the cases upon which Ogletree relies, mandates a conclusion in his favor. Judgment affirmed. Ellington, C. J., and Branch, J., concur. 1 The trial court ruled that these witnesses’ testimony was admissible to show Ogletree’s course of conduct and bent of mind, and instructed the jury on these permissible uses of similar transaction evidence. 2 443 U. S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979) (<HOLDING>). 3 Dorsey v. State, 279 Ga. 534, 542 (3) (615
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 conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential 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 on appeal a defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence and that 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 footnote and punctuation omitted holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt