Stanbury v. State, 299 Ga. 125

Victim Allen Blash was shot August 20, 2009 after a drug transaction at Krystel Quarles’s boarding home; ballistics showed .38 and .45 caliber shots.
Salik McKenzie (co-defendant) pleaded guilty and testified that Thaddius Stanbury was the second man in the house and that Stanbury fired the fatal shots; McKenzie was the only witness who affirmatively identified Stanbury as the shooter.
Multiple witnesses placed Stanbury near the scene that day, observed a man matching his description leaving, and recounted someone carrying an injured McKenzie away; Stanbury fled to Massachusetts and used a false name when arrested.
At trial the court instructed the jury that the testimony of a single witness, if believed, is generally sufficient to establish a fact; no special corroboration instruction for accomplice testimony was given and no party requested one.
Stanbury was convicted of malice murder and firearm possession; on appeal he argued (inter alia) plain error for omission of an accomplice-corroboration jury charge, ineffective assistance for failing to request that charge, insufficient corroboration of McKenzie’s testimony, and that McKenzie’s testimony should have been excluded.
The Supreme Court of Georgia found sufficient corroborating evidence generally but held the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory requirement that accomplice testimony be corroborated, reversed the conviction, and did not reach the remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred (plain error) by omitting an accomplice-corroboration jury charge	Stanbury: omission allowed jury to convict on McKenzie’s uncorroborated accomplice testimony	State: jury instruction that a single witness may establish a fact was sufficient; corroboration not required beyond general instruction	Reversed — plain error: court’s single-witness instruction contradicted statutory requirement for accomplice corroboration and likely affected outcome
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not requesting the corroboration charge	Stanbury: counsel’s failure deprived him of required protection	State: failure to request was forfeiture; no ineffective assistance ruling before reversal	Not reached on merits (trial court error disposed case)
Whether the State presented legally sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony	Stanbury: corroboration was insufficient and inconsistent	State: multiple witnesses placed Stanbury at/near scene, described matching person, and his flight/false identity corroborated McKenzie	Court: corroboration (circumstantial, slight) was legally sufficient to meet OCGA § 24-4-8, but jury instruction error remained dispositive
Whether McKenzie’s testimony should have been excluded because he initially refused the oath	Stanbury: initial refusal undermined admissibility/credibility	State: McKenzie ultimately took the oath and testified	Not reached (unlikely to recur on retrial)

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (insufficiency of evidence standard)
Threatt v. State, 293 Ga. 549 (accomplice corroboration may be slight and circumstantial)
Johnson v. State, 288 Ga. 803 (accomplice testimony requires corroboration under former OCGA § 24-4-8)
Ramirez v. State, 294 Ga. 440 (application of accomplice corroboration rule)
Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (four-prong plain-error test and remedial discretion)
Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680 (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture; plain-error principles)
Seay v. State, 276 Ga. 139 (jury instructions must provide proper guidelines; omission of required charge is reversible error)