Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333

Cowart and Adams were convicted of felony murder and related offenses for an armed robbery that killed Giroir and injured Levi in Savannah on Oct. 28, 2010.
Giroir opened the door; Cowart and Izzo forced entry with guns; they took money, drugs, and a cell phone, then fled in a Honda SUV.
Izzo identified Cowart as shooter and testified for the State after pleading guilty to lesser charges; Adams drove the getaway vehicle and had a role in the plan.
Antle and Levi identified Cowart; Giroir died from two gunshot wounds; Levi survived the injuries.
Izzo, Cowart, and Adams were arrested in Atlanta; the SUV was linked to Adams’s girlfriend’s mother; cash and marijuana were recovered.
Izzo’s lengthy proffer statement was admitted at trial as a prior consistent statement, later deemed improper bolstering; Cowart’s conviction suffered harmless-error relief while Adams’s was deemed harmful, leading to a remand for resentencing as to Cowart and a new trial for Adams; Adams’s sufficiency of evidence was found, allowing retrial if desired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Felony murder counts vs. single victim	Cowart received two felony murders for one victim; one must be vacated.	Jury could have validly convicted on multiple theories; discretion on remand appropriate.	Two convictions based on same victim vacated; remand for resentencing.
Admission of Izzo proffer as prior consistent statement	Proffer clarifies Izzo’s credibility; admissible under prior consistent statement rules.	Proffer does not predate alleged motive and bolsters credibility impermissibly.	Admission was error; treated differently for Cowart (harmless) vs. Adams (harmful).
Harmfulness of bolstering as to Cowart	Izzo’s bolstering aided his credibility; error harmed Cowart's verdict.	Evidence other than the bolstered statement supported guilt; not harmful.	Harmless as to Cowart; no reversal on that basis.
Harmfulness of bolstering as to Adams	Izzo’s bolstered testimony was crucial; improper bolstering likely affected Adams’s verdict.	Sufficiency of other evidence could support Adams; argue retrial not required.	Harmful error as to Adams; new trial required.
Sufficiency of evidence against Adams	Izzo’s testimony could sustain guilt.	Without bolstered proffer, evidence might be insufficient.	Evidence sufficient to support verdict; retrial permissible if desired.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1995) (prior consistent statements must predate alleged motive to fabricate)
Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317 (Ga. 1998) (prior consistent statements admissible only when veracity placed in issue)
Mister v. State, 286 Ga. 303 (Ga. 2009) (plea-plea statements not admissible to bolster trial testimony)
Moon v. State, 288 Ga. 508 (Ga. 2011) (pretrial statements not predated by motive to fabricate)
Duggan v. State, 285 Ga. 363 (Ga. 2009) (prior consistent statements must predate motive to be admissible)
McKibbins v. State, 293 Ga. 843 (Ga. 2013) (slight corroboration may suffice to connect accomplice to crime)
Cash v. State, 294 Ga. App. 741 (Ga. App. 2008) (harmful if only evidence against defendant rests on witness)
McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2010) (defendant entitled to retrial if evidence insufficient following error)
Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (Ga. 1985) (before-1998 rule on admissibility of prior consistent statements)
McClellan v. State, 274 Ga. 819 (Ga. 2002) (vacating one of multiple felony murder verdicts when same victim)
Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441 (Ga. 2013) (defense of self and others; jury credibility determinations)