State v. Johnson, 305 Ga. 237

On New Year’s Eve 2005, Brandon Scott was shot and killed; Johnson and co-defendant Albert Reaux were in the car with Scott during an argument in which Johnson allegedly shot Scott.
The next morning Reaux told his girlfriend that he and Johnson had killed Scott and that Johnson had shot him; the girlfriend testified about Reaux’s statements at trial.
At trial Johnson was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; sentences were imposed.
Johnson moved for a new trial arguing the court erred by not instructing the jury on accomplice corroboration required by OCGA § 24-14-8; the trial court granted a new trial and vacated the sentences.
The State appealed the grant of a new trial, arguing an accomplice corroboration instruction was not clearly required where a non-accomplice witness introduced the accomplice’s statement.
The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed plain error, concluded the trial court clearly erred by failing to give the accomplice corroboration charge, found the error likely affected the outcome, and affirmed the new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to give an accomplice corroboration instruction (OCGA § 24-14-8) when an accomplice’s inculpatory statement was introduced via another witness	State: No, an accomplice corroboration charge is not clearly required where a non-accomplice witness introduces the accomplice’s statement	Johnson: Yes, the accomplice (Reaux) was the only source tying Johnson to the crime, so the jury should have been instructed that accomplice testimony requires corroboration	Court held the failure to instruct was plain error: accomplice corroboration was required, the omission likely affected the verdict, and a new trial was properly granted

Stanbury v. State, 299 Ga. 125 (2016) (failure to give accomplice corroboration charge can mandate new trial where conviction rests on accomplice testimony)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (four-prong plain error test described)
Burns v. State, 342 Ga. App. 379 (2017) (explaining corroboration requirement when an accomplice testifies)
Fisher v. State, 299 Ga. 478 (2016) (ineffective assistance where counsel fails to request accomplice corroboration charge when only accomplice connects defendant)
Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 791 (2014) (jury is sole arbiter of credibility; proper instructions required for assessing evidence)