The State v. Byrd, 341 Ga. App. 421

In August 2008, a 12‑year‑old victim went to Aquino Rashaad Byrd’s home (Byrd was 21); the victim and Byrd had sexual contact (oral sex and intercourse) according to the victim and her cousin.
The victim later told her mother and gave a recorded forensic interview admitting sex with Byrd; the interview was played for the jury.
Byrd gave a recorded police interview and a written statement confessing to oral sex and intercourse, both played for the jury; at trial he recanted and said the confession/statement were made under fear/pressure.
A jury convicted Byrd of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and statutory rape; he was acquitted of enticing a child for indecent purposes.
Byrd timely moved for a new trial on the general grounds; more than five years after judgment the trial court granted a new trial on those grounds based on credibility/conflicts/weight of evidence.
The State appealed, arguing waiver of the general‑grounds claim and that the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence was overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Byrd waive his right to seek a new trial on the general grounds by not arguing them at the hearing or in post‑hearing brief?	State: Byrd abandoned/general‑grounds waived by failing to press them at the hearing or in briefing.	Byrd: He raised the general grounds in his original motion and did not expressly abandon them; they relate to the trial record.	Held: No waiver. Raising general grounds in the original motion preserved them; not raised at hearing/briefing is not an express waiver.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the general grounds despite legally sufficient evidence?	State: Evidence was constitutionally sufficient and overwhelming; judge abused discretion in setting aside the jury verdict.	Byrd: Trial judge properly exercised broad discretion as thirteenth juror considering credibility, conflicts, and weight.	Held: No abuse. Trial court’s exercise of discretion to grant a new trial was within bounds given credibility conflicts; appellate court affirms and notes State may retry.

State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667 (discusses sufficiency vs. trial judge’s broad discretion to grant new trial on general grounds)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90 (trial court may sit as a thirteenth juror; review limited absent abuse of discretion)
Hartley v. State, 299 Ga. App. 534 (preservation of general‑grounds claims raised in original motion despite focus of evidentiary hearing)