McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.
Defendant was tried before a jury and convicted of robbery. This appeal followed the denial of defendant's motion for new trial. Held:
Defendant contends the State's eye-witness testimony was insufficient to authorize the jury's finding that he committed the robbery. This assertion is without merit.
Determinations of witnesses' credibility, including the accuracy of eyewitness identification, are within the jury's exclusive province.
Norris v. State, 258 Ga. 889, 890 (1) (
376 S.E.2d 653) (1989). Our role [as an appellate court] is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, not reweighing it.
Pardo v. State, 215 Ga. App. 317 (1) (
450 S.E.2d 440) (1994).
Jones v. State, 232 Ga. App. 630 (
502 S.E.2d 557). The victim's testimony that defendant assaulted and robbed him is sufficient to authorize the jury's finding that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime charged in the case sub judice.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (
99 S.C. 2781, 61 L.E.2d 560).
Judgment affirmed. Andrews and Ruffin, JJ., concur.
McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.
DECIDED APRIL 14, 1999.