Georgia evidence law states that “[t]he testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact.” This rule is contained in Title 24, Chapter 14 of the Georgia Evidence Code (OCGA § 24-14-8). This applies to all civil cases (personal injury/wrongful death cases, contract claims, domestic cases, etc.) and misdemeanor criminal cases. But in felony cases, a special rule applies. Where the “single witness” who purports to establish a fact is an accomplice to the crime, that witness’s testimony is not sufficient to legally establish that fact, unless it is corroborated.

In Baker v. State, Case No. S24A0560 (October 22, 2024), the Supreme Court considered whether a two defendants convicted of murder should be given a new trial due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on this “corroboration” rule.

The Court’s Analysis

First, it discussed what it means to be an accomplice. It noted a prior ruling defining an accomplice as someone who “shared a common criminal intent to commit the crimes in question with the actual perpetrators.” Reese v. State, 317 Ga. 189, 891 S.E.2d 835 (2023). It then noted that the “intent” required could be shown by evidence that the person actively participated in some way in the crimes taking place, such that they could be considered a party to the underlying crime. Horton v. State, 310 Ga. 310, 849 S.E.2d 382 (2020). The Supreme Court further noted that a person’s “mere presence at the scene of the crime” is not enough, but “criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before, during[,] and after the offense,” citing Lofton v. State, 309 Ga. 349, 846 S.E.2d 57 (2020).

Second, it noted that a defendant is entitled to a particular instruction must be given to the jury if “slight evidence” supports the basis or theory of the instruction (jury charge). Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 781, 756 S.E.2d 507 (2014). But it further noted that where a defendant fails to actually request a charge, the review is only for “plain error,” and the appellate court only considers whether the court made a “clear and obvious error” by not giving the charge without a request. Ash v. State, 312 Ga. 771, 865 S.E.2d 150 (2021).

The Court’s Ruling

Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not find the argument convincing. Although it noted that the defendants might have been able to argue that “slight evidence” supported instructing the jury on the issue, the failure of the trial judge to do so without a request did not rise to the level of “clear and obvious error” required under the circumstances. Therefore, it affirmed the convictions. The case demonstrates the importance of properly developing evidence at trial to support appropriate jury instruction. It also shows the importance of actually requesting that the jury instruction be given at the close of evidence.

The case is available on the Supreme Court’s web site: Baker v. State.