A Chatham County jury found the appellant, Fred Eason, Jr., guilty but mentally ill on two counts of murder. The court sentenced Eason to concurrent life sentences. He raises three issues on appeal. We affirm.1
Eason’s friends and family noticed that he began to act strangely during late January 1985. One week before the killings in question, Eason told his fiancee that he had been “touched by God.” Later in the week, he told her that the world would soon come to an end. On the Friday before the killings, Eason told his fiancee that she did not have to go to work because they would soon be in Paradise.
Later that Friday, Eason and his fiancee drove from Springfield, where his mother was hospitalized with cancer, back to Savannah. When they reached Savannah, they stopped first at a Burger King, where Eason told a number of customers that he was Jesus Christ. Eason then went to the Welsh Pawn Shop to purchase crosses.
He found two crosses that suited him, but he did not have enough money to buy the crosses. To raise the money, Eason went to his sister’s house, where he sold his El Camino truck, valued at $1,200 according to trial testimony, for $70. That amount proved insufficient, so he pawned his fiancee’s stereo and some of her other belongings to finally acquire the crosses. While he was at his sister’s house, Eason also burned a doll from his sister’s doll collection. The family called the police, who came and checked on Eason.
Eason and his fiancee finally left his sister’s house and returned to his fiancee’s residence. There, he began to make crosses on her forehead with his fingers. He then began to use the crosses that he had bought at the pawn shop to make cross marks on her forehead. When she started to bleed, she called the police, who watched over her as she left with her baby to walk to her sister’s house. He told police that he had been popping bumps on her face.
The following day, Jeanette Singleton, the mother of Eason’s two children, accompanied Eason and the children to Springfield to visit Eason’s mother. After leaving Springfield, Eason took Ms. Singleton and the children to his parents’ home in Bloomingdale. When Eason’s brother called the house looking for his wife, he spoke with Ms. Singleton. In the middle of their conversation, Eason took the telephone, *702told his brother, “This is the house of the Lord,” and hung up the telephone.
Eason’s brother thought at that time that his daughter was with Eason in the house, so he drove out to the house to make sure Eason did not harm anyone. When he arrived, he saw that Ms. Singleton and the children were crying. Eason asked him to leave them alone. The brother left and shortly thereafter asked a Bloomingdale policeman, Vick Burke, to stop by the Eason house to check on Ms. Singleton and the children.
The policeman talked Eason into allowing Ms. Singleton to drive the children back into Savannah. Eason did not appear to the policeman to be violent at the time, so after Eason described to the officer the religious symbolism of various objects and writings scattered across the floor, the officer left. When Officer Burke’s replacement, Officer Anderson, stopped by the Eason’s home later that evening to monitor the situation, he found the house dark and empty. He noticed that someone had placed the portable television on top of the wood stove and burned it. He followed footprints from the Eason home to the home of Frank Moody, Eason’s long-time friend.
Eason had, in fact, walked over to Mr. Moody’s house at some point after burning the television and his clothes. In spite of Eason’s nudity, Mr. Moody let him inside his house. Eason went to bed in the guest bedroom that Moody prepared for him.
While in bed, Eason heard a noise that began like Moody’s snores, but turned into demon voices. He got out of bed when he saw Moody walking toward the television in the den. At that point, Eason testified, Moody appeared to change into a demon, so Eason shot and killed Moody with a shotgun. After the shooting, Eason went to sleep in the guest bedroom.
The next morning, Eason walked back to his parents’ house. After talking to another policeman who came by to check on him, Eason walked back over to Moody’s house. Cleveland Best saw Eason, clad only in shorts, walk into the house. When Eason came back out of the house, he was naked, holding a shotgun and a Bible.
Eason walked over to Best and asked him whether he was an angel or a satan. Best replied that he was an angel. Eason said that Best was lying and that Best was a satan. He then fired three shots at Best as Best ran to a nearby home.
Ralph Scott was making his bed that morning when Best burst into his house, shouting that some man had tried to shoot him. Almost immediately, Scott heard his mother say, “Oh my God, he shot Leroy.” Eason had shot Leroy Kelley twice.
When Kelley crawled into a field, attempting to escape, Eason followed him, and according to Scott, told Kelley, “Leroy, I hate your guts.” He then shot Kelley again, killing him. When the police then *703arrived, Eason ran back into his parents’ house. Eason testified at trial that Kelley had appeared to be a demon.
When the police asked Eason to come out of the house, he said, “No, you come in.” Eason finally came out of the house, still naked, and dropped his gun. The officer who took Eason into custody testified at trial that Eason “just started rattling on about Jesus Christ and satan, this, that and the other.” The police then took Eason to the hospital rather than to the jail, because of Eason’s bizarre rantings.
The doctor who examined Eason at the hospital testified that Ea-son, on arrival at the hospital, was “out of contact with reality.” He also testified that at that time, he diagnosed Eason as psychotic. On cross-examination, the doctor stated that he was not a psychiatrist.
The policeman who guarded Eason at the hospital testified that Eason was restrained on a guerney while in the hospital. Eason was also naked while in the hospital. The policeman testified that Eason did not appear to be cogent or rational during the two and a half hours that he spent in the hospital.
Two psychiatrists testified at trial. One stated that in his opinion, Eason was suffering from an acute psychotic break, or delusional compulsion, at the time that he killed the two men. He also stated that in his opinion, Eason could not tell the difference between right and wrong at the time of the killings, and that Eason was not a malingerer.
The other psychiatrist testified that in his opinion, an acute psychotic break had overpowered Eason’s will at the time of the killings. He also testified that Eason could not tell the difference between right and wrong at the time of the killings and that Eason was not a malingerer. On cross-examination, the psychiatrist testified that people suffering from acute psychotic breaks may be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and may occasionally be aware of the nature and quality of their acts.
1. Eason contends that he overcame, by a preponderance of the evidence, the legal presumption that he was sane at the time that he killed Kelley and Moody.
Summarized, the following evidence tends to support Eason’s contention.
(a) Frightened by Eason’s bizarre behavior, Eason’s family called the police to handle Eason at least three times in the two days preceding the killings.
(b) The local police, in fact, checked on Eason a number of times during that period, once leaving when Eason agreed to be hospitalized.
(c) Eason burned his television and his clothes, and then walked, naked, on a January night, over to a friend’s house, where he burned *704another television.
(d) He shot his friend, thinking that the friend was a demon, then he went to sleep.
(e) The next morning, he went home, where he talked to a policeman. After the conversation, he returned to his dead friend’s house, on a January morning, clad only in his underwear.
(f) He retrieved a Bible and a shotgun from the house, left the house naked, and fired the gun at a teenaged boy after calling the boy a satan. He then killed another old family friend, claiming that he, too, was a demon.
(g) Two psychiatrists testified that Eason suffered from an acute psychotic break that overmastered his will at the time of the killings, causing the violence.
(h) Both psychiatrists testified that Eason was not a malingerer.
(i) The doctor who examined Eason at the hospital where the police took Eason immediately after the killings diagnosed Eason as psychotic.
(j) The policeman who guarded Eason at the hospital testified that at that time, Eason did not appear to be cogent or rational.
In addition to the evidentiary presumption of the defendant’s sanity, the following evidence tends to support the state’s contention.
(a) A neighbor testified that Eason expressed hatred towards one of the victims immediately before killing him.
(b) One policeman testified that Eason seemed in control of his faculties in the morning on the day of the second killing.
(c) Eason attempted to give a rational explanation for scratching his fiancee’s face.
(d) One psychiatrist testified that Eason’s comment toward Kelley could indicate either anger or a psychotic break.
(e) Eason, when he saw the police, ran into his parents’ house after he shot Kelley, and only came out when threatened.
(f) No doctor detected a cause for the psychotic break.
In reviewing a verdict of guilty but mentally ill in a case where the appellant relies on OCGA § 16-3-3, this court determines whether, construing the evidence in favor of the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the appellant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his will was overmastered by a delusional compulsion which caused him to commit the act or acts that led to his indictment, trial, and conviction. Keener v. State, 254 Ga. 699 (334 SE2d 175) (1985). This court concludes, under the foregoing evidence, that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not show that the killing of Frank Moody and Leroy Kelley occurred as a result of a delusional compulsion that overmastered Eason’s will. Compare Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 (350 SE2d 21) (1986).
*7052. Implicit in the foregoing analysis is the conclusion that the state adequately proved the element of intent at trial.
3. We do not find the photographs subject to the appellant’s attack to be inadmissible. Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862 (302 SE2d 347) (1983).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Smith and Bell, JJ., who dissent.The crime was committed on January 27,1985. The Chatham County jury returned its verdict of guilty on January 10, 1986. A motion for new trial was filed January 14, 1986, and amended on February 20,1986. The motion for new trial was overruled on June 12,1986 and notice of appeal was filed in this Court on June 23,1986. The transcript of evidence was filed July 10, 1986 and the record was docketed in this Court on July 17, 1986. The case was submitted on August 29, 1986.