☢ test - Í

truck when Self smashed the window. The evidence in this case was sufficient for the jury to infer that Rinks intentionally aided, abetted, or encouraged Self's direct commission of the crime, and was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to the crime.” Harrelson v. State, 312 Ga.App. 710, 719 S.E.2d 569 (November 18, 2011). Evidence supported conviction as party to crime of motor vehicle hijacking and related offenses: defendant accompanied Poss to convenience store. Defendant stood in front of victim’s car while Poss held a knife to victim’s stomach and made him surrender car keys. Defendant then entered passenger side of car and drove away with Poss. “In this case, there was ample evidence from which a jury could have concluded that Harrelson was more than ‘merely present’ when Poss committed the offense of hijacking a motor vehicle by his conduct before, during, and after the criminal acts.” Simmons v. State, 289 Ga. 773, 716 S.E.2d 165 (October 3, 2011). Murder conviction affirmed; evidence was sufficient to convict defendant as party to the crime. “ Although Appellant was not the person who kicked the victim into a vegetative state, he was an equally guilty party to the crime because he intentionally aided, abetted, and encouraged it. See OCGA § 16–2–20 (defining party culpability). Considering Appellant's conduct ‘before, during, and after’ the beating, Navarrette v. State, 283 Ga. 156, 158 (656 S.E.2d 814) (2008), several facts indicate that he had the required intent. Appellant began the conflict, punching the victim shortly before Watson began to attack him. See id. at 158 (holding that the defendant's assaulting the victim shortly before another person stabbed him to death was one factor supporting party culpability). Appellant then ‘stood by and watched’ as Watson mercilessly continued the assault. Id. But Appellant did not just express tacit approval of the attack; he encouraged Watson to ‘beat [the victim's] ass.’ See Simpson v. State, 265 Ga. 665, 665–666 (461 S.E.2d 210) (1995) (holding that while mere approval of a crime does not support party culpability, encouraging it does). Finally, Appellant told Watson they should leave and drove him away from the scene after watching him savagely beat the victim into unconsciousness. See Teasley v. State, 288 Ga. 468, 469–470 (704 S.E.2d 800) (2010) (holding that the defendant's driving his brothers away immediately after they shot the victim was one factor supporting party culpability).” Powell v. State, 310 Ga.App. 144, 712 S.E.2d 139 (June 17, 2011). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction as party to the crime of robbery: “testimony that Powell was present in the car with [co-defendants], and that he participated in the discussion about the robbery, combined with his subsequent entry into the motel room where [accomplice and victim] were present and his flight thereafter, was sufficient to support his robbery conviction.” Dockery v. State, 309 Ga.App. 584, 711 S.E.2d 100 (May 16, 2011). Convictions for child molestation and related offenses affirmed; evidence supported finding that defendant aided and abetted her husband by enticing victim. “‘[I]f the defendant had knowledge of the intended crime and shared in the criminal intent of the principal actor, he is an aider and abettor. Hence, if the defendant was at the scene and did not disapprove or oppose the commission of the offense, a trier of fact may consider such conduct in connection with prior knowledge and would be authorized to conclude the defendant assented to the commission of the offense, that he lent his approval to it, thereby aiding and abetting the commission of the crime.’ [ Romero v. State, 307 Ga.App. 348, 349-350, 705 S.E.2d 195 (2010)]. Here, the evidence was that when Charles Dockery brought the victim back to his home, he left her with Crystal Dockery who admits to giving the victim the thong panties. There was also evidence that Dockery gave the victim alcohol, and gave the victim pornographic materials to read before Charles Dockery came home. The victim testified that Crystal Dockery was close by on the couch when Charles Dockery pulled down her pants, tried to kiss her, pulled down her underwear and offered her money to put on the thong.” Flores v. State, 308 Ga.App. 368, 707 S.E.2d 578 (March 10, 2011). In prosecution for trafficking in methamphetamine, conviction of co-defendant Lopez reversed for lack of evidence. Lopez was a passenger with Flores in vehicle which arrived at scene of arranged drug transaction; second vehicle, driven by Garcia-Maldonado, contained methamphetamine. Garcia-Maldonado testified that he had been paid by Lopez to drive the vehicle, but nothing connected Lopez to the drug vehicle. “Further, Lopez's conviction cannot be upheld on the ground that he was a party to the crime of trafficking in methamphetamine, as the state failed to adduce evidence that he intentionally caused another to commit the crime, aided or abetted in the commission of the crime, or advised or encouraged another to commit the crime. … In Count 2 of the indictment, Lopez was charged with the offense of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, namely, possession of methamphetamine. Because the evidence did not support the ‘during the commission of a felony’ element of the firearm possession charge, Lopez's conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony must be reversed.”