State v. GRIER (And Vice Versa), 309 Ga. 452

Dec. 21, 2007: James Yarborough was robbed and fatally shot after getting into a Honda with Darius Jordan and Rimion Rawlings; Kenneth Kaiser survived and identified Jordan and Rawlings but not the shooter in a lineup.
Quantavious Grier, a friend of Jordan and resident near the scene, was indicted in 2010 for felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses; a jury convicted him on all counts in Dec. 2010.
The State's key witness, Rimion Rawlings, testified after receiving immunity and identified Grier as the shooter but admitted participating in the robbery and accepting $50 to keep silent.
The trial court (after multiple hearings) granted Grier's motion for a new trial in 2019, sitting as the "thirteenth juror," concluding Rawlings was an accomplice and that his testimony lacked adequate independent corroboration.
The State appealed the grant of a new trial as an abuse of discretion; Grier cross-appealed, arguing the trial evidence was legally insufficient (which, if true, would bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds).
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed: it held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in granting a new trial, but nonetheless found the trial evidence was legally sufficient under federal and state standards to support the jury's verdict.

Issue	State's Argument	Grier's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the general (thirteenth-juror) grounds by treating Rawlings as an accomplice and finding insufficient corroboration?	Trial court abused discretion because Rawlings was not an accomplice and, even if he were, his testimony was corroborated.	Rawlings was an accomplice and his testimony lacked independent corroboration; judge properly granted new trial.	Affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion; as thirteenth juror he reasonably found Rawlings an accomplice and corroboration insufficient.
Was the evidence presented at trial legally insufficient such that retrial is barred by double jeopardy?	The evidence was legally sufficient to sustain convictions; federal and state standards satisfied.	The evidence was insufficient; if true, retrial would be barred.	Held: Evidence was legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia and under Georgia law (jury could have found Rawlings not an accomplice or that minimal corroboration existed), so double jeopardy does not bar retrial.

State v. Holmes, 306 Ga. 647 (judge may grant new trial on general grounds)
State v. Hamilton, 306 Ga. 678 (thirteenth-juror review; discretion to grant new trial when verdict strongly against weight of evidence)
White v. State, 293 Ga. 523 (trial judge may grant new trial even if evidence is legally sufficient)
Dozier v. State, 307 Ga. 583 (corroboration may be circumstantial and slight but must independently connect defendant to crime)
Robinson v. State, 303 Ga. 321 (clarifies nature of sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony)
State v. Caffee, 291 Ga. 31 (double jeopardy bars retrial if evidence at trial was legally insufficient)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339 (Eleventh Circuit: uncorraborated accomplice testimony can suffice under federal law if not incredible)
Llewellyn v. Stynchcombe, 609 F.2d 194 (Fifth Circuit discussion of accomplice corroboration and federal sufficiency)