Gаbriel Young, Lawrence Williams and Renard Tremble were charged with crimes arising out of the shooting death of A. K. Williams (no relation to Lawrence Williams), a Savannah store owner. The three men were tried together and at thе close of the evidence, the court directed a verdict in favor of Tremble. The court thereafter allowed the State to reopen its case to introduce into evidence Tremble’s non-redacted statement to the police. The jury found Young and Williams guilty of the charged crimes. Because we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying appellants’ motions for new *491 trial and no reversible error in the remaining enumerated errors, we affirm the convictions and sentences entered thereon. 1
1. The evidence adduced at trial authorized the jury to find that Tremble and appellants gathered at a nearby park and planned аn armed robbery of the gas station/convenience store owned and operated by the victim and his wife only minutes before the crimes. While Tremble and Young engaged the victim in conversation in the garage, Williams approached the victim’s wife, who was tending the cash register in the grocery store, and pulled a pistol on her when she turned to get change for the soft drink Williams had pretended to purchase. When the victim entered the groсery store, Williams fired repeatedly, hitting the victim twice and inflicting fatal injuries. Appellants and Tremble then fled the scene. Although the victim’s wife and a customer who had exited the store moments before the crimes were not able to identify the perpetrators, one eyewitness told police she saw Williams running from the scene and another witness testified she saw Young, or his “twin,” also leaving the area. Young gave a statement to the policе admitting he was at the scene serving as a lookout; a live .22 caliber long-rifle bullet found in Young’s possession was of the same type recovered from the victim’s body. Young’s half-brother (and cousin by marriage to Williams) testified that shortly after the crimes, while he was present with Young and Williams, Williams admitted that “they” had attempted to rob the store and that Williams had shot the victim.
We find this evidence sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants committed the crimes for which they were convicted.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellants cоntend the trial court erred by denying their motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. A trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial will not be reversed unless it
*492
affirmatively appears that the court abused its discretion.
Kitchens v. State, 228
Ga. 624 (4) (
In a thorough review of all the evidence, the trial court considered this testimony and the State’s counter-evidence, which rеvealed striking discrepancies between Blake’s testimony and the facts established by the crime scene and eyewitnesses. In addition to Blake’s sworn retraction of his earlier statements and testimony by Blake and others about his tendency to lie, the State established that Blake’s earlier statements contained factual inaccuracies found only in media reports of the crime, reports which Blake testified he had followed clоsely, 3 and that the earlier statements failed to take into account important details that an actual participant in the crimes could not have missed. 4
After considering the six criteria which appellants had tо satisfy in order to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, see
Timberlake v. State,
3. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s admission of three photos of the deceased depicting the injuries he received.
Russell v. State,
4. Appellants contend the trial сourt committed reversible error in making comments to the jury after directing the verdict for co-defendant Tremble. 6 Appellants claim that these statements implied to the jury that, while Tremble could not be found guilty based on the evidence, appellants were guilty since there was sufficient evidence with which the jury could convict them. Hence, appellants contend that the trial court expressed its opinion to the jury in derogation of OCGA § 17-8-57, which finds error when judges in criminal cases express or intimate their opinions “as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused.”
However, an examination of the trial court’s entire statement mаde to the jury reveals that these statements were made along with the caution that neither the directed verdict, nor the judge’s words
*494
were to imply the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants.
7
Remarks of the trial court assigning a reason for its ruling are neither an expression of opinion nor a comment on the evidence.
Crowe v. State,
5. Appellants’ remaining enumerations have either been abandoned pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 22, see
Crowder v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on July 28, 1993. Williams, Young and Tremble were indicted November 10,1993 in Chatham County. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Tremble on March 25, 1994. The jury on March 30, 1994 found Young and Williams guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault on the murder victim, two counts of aggravated assault as to Ms. Williams, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentencеd both men on April 11,1994 to life on the felony murder charge, twenty years concurrent on the aggravated assault on Ms. Williams and five years consecutive on the possession charge. The motions for new trial filed by Young and Williams, аs amended, were denied September 25, 1997. Young filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 1997 and his appeal was docketed on December 3, 1997. Williams’ motion for out-of-time appeal was granted Deсember 12,1997, his notice of appeal was filed the same day, and the appeal was docketed February 3, 1998. This Court granted the motion to consolidate oral arguments, which were heard April 13, 1998.
Both statements were made while Blake was incarcerated. The first statement was made to a hoot camp counselor; the other was made to an investigator from the district attorney’s office and a police officer.
Two of the inaccuracies garnered solely from media reports include Blake’s claim that he saw the victim being shot in the forehead (both shots entered the victim’s arms, with the one fatal shot continuing into the victim’s lungs) and that he pаssed a man mowing a lawn near the store (as reported in the paper; however, the owner of the property and other eyewitnesses testified no one was mowing the day of the crimes).
The trial court noted in рarticular that Blake’s descriptions of the victim failed to mention a flamboyant hat the victim was wearing.
As set forth in-Timberlake, supra, on motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, it is incumbent that the movant satisfy the court (1) that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial; (2) that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that he did not acquire it sooner; (3) that it is so material that it would probably produce a different verdict; (4) that it is not cumulative only; (5) that the affidavit of the witness is attached to the motion or its absence accounted for; and (6) that the new evidence does not operate solely to impeach the credibility of a witness. Failure to show one requirement is sufficient to *493 deny a motion for new trial. Id. at 491.
Appellants point to the trial court’s statements that “I have made a determination that the State has not presented here in Court sufficient evidence for me to allow you to consider whether or not to return convictions against Renard Tremble ...” and “Now the case is still pending against the other two [defendants.”
The transcript reveals that the judge stated that “[i]n making this ruling, I am not making any opinion as to whеther Mr. Tremble is innocent or guilty and “I am not expressing any opinion one way or the other about the guilt or innocence of the remaining [defendants and you should draw no inferences from my ruling.”
Appellants enumerate as еrror the denial of motions for mistrial, including a motion regarding testimony about appellants’ marijuana usage, and the denial of their motion for severance. Appellant Williams also enumerates as error the admission of testimony not in his redacted statement and prejudicial hearsay.