Glenn v. State, 306 Ga. 550

On Feb. 3, 2015, John Tanner was shot and killed during a confrontation and robbery outside an Affordable Inn; a .25 caliber casing was recovered but no gun was found.
Calvin Glenn and his brother Delron were arrested after surveillance video, dropped items (including a red phone that belonged to Calvin), and witness identifications tied them to the scene; co-defendant Stanley Kitchens pleaded guilty to other charges and testified.
Calvin was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and related firearm offenses; convicted at a joint trial with Delron and later acquitted at a bench trial of possession by a felon.
Trial evidence included: motel surveillance video and stills, witness lay identifications (including from a prior girlfriend and Kitchens), phone and key recovered near a flight path, and testimony about Calvin supplying a gun to Delron and instigating the confrontation over alleged drug debt.
Calvin appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to convict him as a party to the crimes and (2) erroneous admission of lay-witness identifications from the surveillance video.

Issue	Glenn's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict Calvin as a party to malice murder, armed robbery, and felony firearm	Evidence did not show Calvin shot or robbed Tanner or that he knew Delron would shoot; Kitchens’s statements about Calvin having the gun are unreliable	Evidence showed Calvin instigated the encounter, pressured Delron, gave Delron a gun, participated in roughing up and fleeing, and left indicia (phone) at scene — supporting party liability	Affirmed. Evidence (including conduct before/during/after, familiarity, and video IDs admitted at trial) was sufficient for a rational jury to find Calvin guilty as a party to the crimes.
Admissibility of lay-witness identifications from surveillance video/stills (motion in limine)	Jury can view video and decide identity; lay identification testimony should be excluded because jurors can form their own view and admission risks improper opinion evidence	Under OCGA § 24-7-701 and federal Rule 701 analogues, lay opinion ID is admissible when witness has a basis (e.g., familiarity) making them better able to identify poor-quality video images	Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion: video quality was poor, witnesses were familiar with defendant, and lay ID testimony was properly admitted under Rule 701/OCGA § 24-7-701.

Powell v. State, 291 Ga. 743 (party liability principles for accomplices)
Terrell v. State, 300 Ga. 81 (credibility determinations for witness testimony are for the jury)
Denton v. State, 286 Ga. 494 (same)
McGruder v. State, 303 Ga. 588 (presence, companionship, and conduct can support inference of criminal intent)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Folston v. State, 294 Ga. 778 (party liability where defendant furnished gun and directed violence)
Kemp v. State, 303 Ga. 385 (foreseeable risk and party liability)
Solomon v. State, 304 Ga. 846 (prior threats and family relationship relevant to party liability)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (admissibility principles and Evidence Code transition)
Cuyuch v. State, 284 Ga. 290 (discussed re: prior law on improperly admitted hearsay; distinguished under new Evidence Code)