Palencia v. State, 313 Ga. 625

Palencia and four co-defendants were jointly indicted for a home invasion, sexual assault, and related felonies; the co-defendants pleaded guilty and testified against Palencia.
The victim (V.M.) was attacked while masked and never identified Palencia at trial; medical DNA testing excluded Palencia and Ramirez-Aguilar.
Three witnesses who either pled guilty or implicated Palencia (Ramirez-Aguilar, Lopez-Huinil, Garcia) testified that Palencia was present and was the rapist; those witnesses were potentially accomplices.
The trial court instructed the jury with the generic single-witness rule but did not give an accomplice-corroboration charge; defense made no contemporaneous objection, so review is for plain error under Kelly.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the victim’s testimony and rape‑statute law made corroboration unnecessary; Palencia petitioned for certiorari arguing Stanbury required an accomplice‑corroboration charge when accomplice testimony links a defendant.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the Court of Appeals misapplied Stanbury, reversed that portion of the decision, and remanded for consideration of the remaining plain‑error prongs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to give an accomplice‑corroboration instruction while giving a single‑witness charge is plain error when accomplices testified linking defendant to the crime	Palencia: Under Stanbury, giving the single‑witness instruction without an accomplice‑corroboration charge is clear and obvious error when accomplice testimony links defendant	State/Ct. of Appeals: Victim’s in‑court testimony and rape‑statute jurisprudence mean corroboration of the victim was unnecessary, so Stanbury does not apply here	Supreme Court: Court of Appeals erred; Stanbury governs where accomplices testify and the single‑witness charge was given; remanded to assess remaining plain‑error prongs
Whether the presence of victim testimony or other corroboration eliminates the need for an accomplice‑corroboration instruction	Palencia: Even with victim testimony or other corroboration, an accomplice’s testimony that connects defendant requires the statutory corroboration instruction when the jury is told a single witness may suffice	State: Overwhelming corroboration (including victim testimony) meant the accomplice‑corroboration charge was unnecessary	Supreme Court: Corroborating evidence may bear on harmlessness/outcome but does not eliminate the instructional requirement when the single‑witness charge is given and accomplice testimony links defendant; courts must still consider harmlessness on remand

Stanbury v. State, 299 Ga. 125 (2016) (failure to give accomplice‑corroboration charge while giving single‑witness instruction is clear error when accomplice links defendant)
Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (plain‑error four‑prong test for unpreserved charge errors)
Doyle v. State, 307 Ga. 609 (2020) (reaffirming that single‑witness instruction plus accomplice testimony requires accomplice‑corroboration charge)
Pindling v. State, 311 Ga. 232 (2021) (accomplice‑corroboration instruction required when slight evidence supports accomplice status)
State v. Johnson, 305 Ga. 237 (2019) (rejecting argument that third‑party testimony of accomplice statement eliminates need for corroboration instruction)
Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 791 (2014) (failure to give accomplice‑corroboration instruction is error even with multiple corroborating witnesses)
Glaze v. State, 317 Ga. App. 679 (2012) (discussing sufficiency of victim testimony under rape statute; distinguishable on accomplice‑corroboration issue)
Baker v. State, 245 Ga. 657 (1980) (historical discussion on corroboration in rape prosecutions)