F IRST DIVISIO N

BA RNES, P. J

., M C M I L L IA N a n d M ERCIER, J J

.

NO T I C E : Mo ti o n s fo r reco n si d erati o n mu st b e

p h ys i cal

l y r ecei ved i n o u r c l e rk’ s o ffi ce w i th i n ten

d a ys o f th e d a te o f d eci s i o n to b e d eemed ti mel y fi l ed

.

h ttp :/ / w w w

. g aap p eal s. u s/ ru l es

J u n e 2 3

, 2 0 1 7



# I n t h e C o u rt

o f Ap p eal s o f Geo rg i a

A 17A 0117. L A WRE NCE v

. T H E S T A T E

.

M C M I LLI A

N

, J u d g e.

A ppel l an t K en del l L awr en ce was con v i cted of ar

m ed r obber

y

, ki dn appi n g

, r ape,

ag g r av ated s o dom

y

, an d pos s es s i on of a f

i r e a r m du r i n g th e com

m i s s i on of a f

el on y

,

i n v o l v i n g two s u cces s i v e v i cti m s on th e s am e n i g h t. A f t er t h e tr i al cou

r t den i ed

L awr en ce’ s m

oti on f o r n ew tr i al

, as am en ded, L awr en ce th en f i l ed th i s appeal

. F i n di n g

n o er r or

, we af f i r m

.

L awr en ce beg an h i s cr i m e s pr ee on th e ev en i n g of D ecem ber 8, 2011. S om

eti m e

between 6: 00 an d 7: 00 p. m

. , M

. M

. ex i ted a MA RT A bu s on Ol d Nati on al H i g h way

n ear h er h om

e an d wal ked to a con

v en i en ce s tor e, wh er e s h e pu r ch as ed s n acks u s i n g

h er E B T debi t car d. 1 A f

ter s h e m ade h er pu

r ch as es

, s h e s tar

t ed wal ki n g down towar d

1 E B T debi t car ds ar e i s s u ed to f ood s tam p r eci pi en ts

.h er n e ighb o r h o od wh en s h e n oti ced a v eh i cl e, w h i ch s h e s ai d l o o ked ol der an d was

“ l ou d, ” s peed pas t h er

, an d a s h or t ti m e l ater s h e n oti ced a m an wal k i n g towar d h er

.

A s th e m an appr oach ed h er

, h e tol d h er n o t to d o an y th i n g cr azy

, an d s h e h ear d a

cl i cki n g s ou

n d, wh i ch s h e s ai d s ou

n ded l i ke a g

u n bei n g cocked. T h e m an as ked h er

i f s h e h ad m

on ey

, an d s h e tol d h i m s h e di d n ot h av e an y cas h

. H e th en bl i n df

ol ded h er

,

g r abbed h er ar

m

, an d wal ked h er acr os s t h e s tr eet t o a v eh i cl e wh er e th ey both g ot i n to

th e back s eat. A f

ter s om eon e el s e s tar

ted dr i v i n g t

h e car

, th ey took h er cel l p h on e f r om

h er p ocket, an d th en th e per son i n f r o n t i n s tr u cted th e per s on n ex t to h er t o h av e h er l i e

down s o sh e di d.

M

. M

. tes ti f

i ed th at th e car cam e to a s t op abou t s ev en to ten m

i n u t es l ater

, an d

s h e was tol d to ex i t th e v eh i cl e. M

. M

. r em ai n ed bl i n df o l ded, bu t s h e s ai d t

h at i t f el t

l i ke s h e w as w al k i n g th

r ou g h a w ooded ar ea down a g r av el or di r t r oad. A f ter a m i n u te

th ey cam e t o a h ou s e, an d th e m en h el ped h er cr awl th

r ou g h a wi n dow to g et i n s i d e,

wh er e s h e n oti ced a m

u s ty s m el l

. T h e m en wal k ed h er u ps tai r s wh er e h e i n s tr

u cted h er

to take of f h er “ bottom s

, ” wh i ch s h e di d. T h e m en th en took tu

r n s s ex u al l y as s au l ti n g

h er v ag i n al l y an d or al l y

, an d M

. M

. tes ti f i ed th at wh en on e o f th e m en pu t h i s pen i s i n

h er m ou th

, s h e tas ted r

u bber th at s h e th ou g h

t was f r om a con dom

. A sh or

t t i m e l ater

,

2th e m en m ade h er u s e a dou ch e an d al s o g av e h er a wet was h cl oth s o s h e cou l d was h

ou t t h e i n s i de of h er m

o u th

. Wh en s h e f

i n i s h ed, s h e w as tol d to g et dr es s ed.

A t s om e poi n t, th e m en al s o as ked th e v i cti m i f s h e h ad an y m on ey on h er E B T

car d

, an d th ey took th e car d an d h er backpack. S h e s ai d th ey h el ped h er cr awl back ou

t

th e wi n d ow, an d th ey g o t back i n th e car an d dr ov e h er b ack to th e ar ea wh er e th ey h ad

abdu cted h er

. T h ey r em ov ed th e bl i n df ol d an d poi n

ted h er i n th e di r ecti on th ey wan ted

h er t o wal k an d tol d h er n ot to l ook back. A f ter s h e h ear d th em dr i v i n g away

, s h e r an

i n to a n ear by bu s i n es s wh er e sh e tol d th em s h e h ad b een r obbed an d as ked f o r a ph on e

to cal l pol i ce an d h er boy f r i en d. H er boy f

r i en d an d h er m

oth er ar r i v ed, an d M

. M

. was

tr an s por ted to Gr ady

, wh er e s h e u n der wen t a s ex u al as s au l t ex am

i n ati on

.

L ater th at sam e n i g h

t, th e s econ d v i cti m

, L

. W.

, wen t t o a bar wh er e s h e wor

ked

to m eet f r i en ds f or dr i n ks

. S h e s ai d i t was appr ox i m atel y 11: 00 p. m

. wh en s h e ar r i v ed,

an d s h e par

ked i n a l i g h

ted ar ea wh er e s h e s at i n h er car to w ai t on h er f r i en ds

. Wh i l e

s h e w as wai ti n g

, sh e took abou t $600, h er wal l et, an d cr edi t car ds an d p l aced th em i n

th e g l ov e box becau s e s h e di d n ot wan t to take th em i n si de th e bar wi th h er

.

Wh en L

. W. saw h er f

r i en d’ s c a r p ull i n

to th e par ki n g l ot, s h e open ed h er car

door an d s tar

ted t o ex i t he r ve hic le. S h e n oti ced a “ r ag g edy s ou n di n g ” f aded r ed or

bu r n t o r an g e ol der m

o del “ r odeo” o r s i m

i l ar t y pe v eh i cl e pu l l i n g i n

to th e par ki n g l ot.

3A s s h e was l ocki n g h er car door f r om t h e o uts i de, a m an

, wh o s h e des cr i bed as

appr ox i m atel y f

i v e f eet s ev en i n ch es tal l an d br own s k i n n ed, appr oach ed h er an d as ked

f or a ci g ar ette. W h en s h e r each ed f or a ci g ar ette, sh e f

el t h i m pu t a g u n to h er s i de. S h e

of f er ed h i m h er p u

r se, an d h e tol d h er to o p e n t he car an d th at h e kn ew th at s h e h ad

s om eth i n g i n s i d e th e car

. H e th en tol d h er to g et back i n si de he r c a r

, a nd as s h e

com pl i ed, sh e h ear d th e n oi s y v eh i cl e s h e h ad n oti ced ear l i er star t u p ag ai n

. S h e s ai d

s h e was cr

y i n g an d h er h an ds wer e s ti l l s h aki n g so badl y s h e cou l d n ot d r i v e, an d h e

tol d h er to “ g et i t

tog eth er ,” or th at h e wou l d ki l l h er

.

L

. W

. s tar ted dr i v i n g

, w i th th e m an g i v i n g h er di r ecti on s to dr i v e to Ol d Nati on al

H i g h way

. H e al s o wen

t t h r ou g h th e g l ov e box an d took o u t th e m on ey s h e h ad pl aced

th er e. T h e m

an al s o i n str

u cted L

. W. t o g o to t

h e A T M to wi th dr aw m

on ey f r om h er

accou n t wi t h h er ch eck car d, wh i ch s h e di d.

L

. W. r etu

r n ed t o Ol d Nati on al H i g h way

, an d th e m an c o n

ti n u ed to g i v e h er

di r ecti o n s abou

t wh er e to dr i v e. A f

ter abou t ten m i n u tes

, th ey dr ov e i n

to a r es i den

ti al

n ei g h bor h ood wh er e s h e n oti ced a d i s ti n cti v e s i g n

, an d th ey tu r n ed o n to a dead- en d

r o ad an d cam e to a stop. T h e m an i n s tr u cted h er to t u r n o f f th e l i g h ts an d th e car

, an d

s h e h ear d s om

e o n e tappi n g on th e pas s en g er wi n dow n ex t to wh er e th e m an was

s eated. T h e m an open ed th e wi n dow, an d sh e h ear d h i m s peaki n g to th e an oth er m an

,

4wh o sai d th ey sh ou l d “ d ead h er

. ” T h e m en th en bl i n df ol ded h er

. T h e s econ d m an

, wh o

L

. W. des cr i bed as h av i n g a d eeper v oi ce, th en cam e ar ou n d to th e dr i v er ’ s door

,

open ed i t, took L

. W

. b y t

h e ar m

, an d l i f ted h er ou t of th e car

. S h e t es t i f

i ed s h e f el t on e

of th e m en pl ace a g

u n ag ai n s t h er b ack, an d s he c o u l d tel l wh en th ey l ef t t h e pav ed

s u r f ace an d beg an wal ki n g on s om eth i n g cr u n ch y

, wh i ch s h e s aw was pi n e s tr aw wh en

s h e peer ed u

n der h er b l i n df

ol d

.

E v en tu al l y

, s h e cou l d h ear a w ind o w bei n g r ai s ed, an d s h e was as s i s ted i n

s teppi n g t h r ou g h

. A f ter l eadi n g h er u

p s om e s tai r s, th ey took h er to a r oom wh er e th ey

tol d h er to u

n dr es s

. S h e s ai d th at s h e cou l d tel l th e f l oor i n th e r oom w as car

peted an d

th at i t w as dam

p 2 an d h ad an odor l i ke i t was ol d. T h e m e n t he n t o o k tu r n s s ex u al l y

as s au l ti n g h er v ag i n al l y an d or al l y

. A f t er th e m en f

i n i sh ed w i th h er

, th e deeper v oi ced

m an i n ser ted s om

eth i n g i n to h er v ag i n a, an d s h e cou l d f eel th e l i qu i d g oi n g i n an d

r u n n i n g down h er l eg s

. S h e th en h ear d wh at s ou n ded l i ke water bei n g s qu eezed ou t of

a wet towel

, an d s h e f

el t s om eon e pu t th e towel i n h er m

ou th an d wi pe ou t th e i n s i de

of h er m ou th

. S h e s ai d t

h at s h e w as th en cl ean ed f r on t to back ar o u

n d h er v ag i n a an d

“ beh i n d. ” T h ey r epeated th e p r oces s

, an d th en th ey h el ped h er pu

t o n h er cl oth es

.

2 T h e w et f

l oor was con s i s ten

t wi th L

. W

. bei n g taken to th e s am e s p ot wh er e

M

. M

. h ad been r aped an d f or ced t o dou ch e an d was h ear l i er i n t h e ev en i n g

.

5T h e s of ter v oi ced m an t

h en took L

. W. back to h er car

, tol d h er to cou n t to 100,

an d al l owed h er to dr i v e away

. S h e dr ov e back to th e bar wh er e s h e wor ked, f ou n d h er

m an a g er th er e, an d cal l ed 911. T h e pol i ce cam e an d s h e w as tr an s por t ed to t h e

h os pi tal

, wh er e a s ex

u al as s au l t ex am

i n ati o n was per f

or m ed.

A f ter s h e l ef t th e h o s pi tal wi th a m

al e f r i en d wh o h ad m

et h er th er e, s h e tol d h i m

th at s h e wan

ted to r etr ace h er s teps to s ee i f sh e cou l d f i n d wh er e th e m en h ad taken

h er

. T h ey wer e abl e to f

i n d th e pl ace wh er e sh e th ou g h t s h e h ad been t aken

, wh i ch

tu r n ed o u t to be par t of th e P i n e T r ee T r ai l Con dom i n i u m com pl ex

. T h er e, th ey f

ou n d

th at th e pol i ce w er e al r eady at th e l ocati on bas ed o n h er des cr i pti o n of wh er e th e m en

h ad taken h er

. S h e sh owed pol i ce th e u n i t wh er e s h e h ad been taken an d th en took

th em to th e r oom wh er e s h e h ad been r aped. S h e tes ti f i ed t h er e wer e v i s i bl e w et s pots

on th e f l oor wh er e s h e h ad been m ade to dou ch e, an d a pol i ce i n v es ti g ator s ai d th at t

h e

ph y si cal con di ti on of th e l ocati on was con si s ten t w i th wh at t

h e v i cti m h ad tol d pol i ce,

i n cl u di n g th e f

act t h at th er e was n o r

u n n i n g water

i n s i de th e con do.

T h e ev i d en ce al s o s h owed th at at th at ti m e, L awr en ce was l i v i n g i n u n i t 1113 of

th e P i n e T r ee T r ai l con dom i n i u m com pl ex wi th h i s f

ath er an d f

ath er ’ s g i r l f

r ie nd

,

J as m i n e M or ga n. T he ev i d en ce al s o s h o wed th at h e own ed a r ed I s u zu S UV, wh i ch

was u su al l y par

ked i n f r on t of th ei r c o nd o

. D ean

twan A l l en al s o l i v ed i n t h e

6con dom

i n i u m com pl ex wi th h i s g i r l f

r i en d

, A s h l ey McDan i el

, an d h er f am i l y

. A l l en an d

L awr en ce w er e cl os e f

r i en ds an d wer e o f

ten tog eth er

.

M cDan i el

, he r m oth er

, an d J as m i n e M or g an each tes t i f

i ed an d/or g av e

s tat e m e nt s t o pol i ce abou t th e ev en

ts of Decem

ber 8, 2011. M cDan i el ’ s m oth er

tes ti f i ed th at s he w a s w a l ki n g h om e f r o m th e bu s s top af

t er wor k w h en A l l en an d

L a w r e n ce d

r ov e b y i n L awr en ce’ s v eh i cl e an d as ked h er i f sh e wan ted a r i de

. S he

accepted an d th ey dr opped h er of f ou ts i d e h er con do. M cDan i el con f i r m ed th at s h e s aw

A l l en wh en sh e l o oked o u t t he wi n dow as L awr en ce was dr o ppi n g of f h er m oth er

ar ou n d 5: 00 to 6: 0 0 p. m

. S h e di d n o t s ee A l l en ag ai n u n ti l th e n ex t day

.

M or g an tes ti f

i ed th at on th e n i g h

t of D ecem

ber 8, 2011, s h e was h om

e al on e an d

h ad f al l en as l eep on t

h e s of a watch i n g tel ev i s i o n

. S h e woke u p as s h e h ear d s om

eon e

com e i n to th e h ou s e an d g o i n

to th e ki tch en

. S h e g ot u

p an d l o oked ou

t s i de an d di d n ot

s ee L awr en ce’ s r ed I s u zu par ked i n i ts u s u al s pot i n f

r on t of th e con do, bu

t wh en s h e

wen t u ps tai r s an d l ooked, s h e s aw i t was par ked f ar th er away th an n or

m al

, m or e u p t h e

h i l l

. S h e tes ti f

i ed t h at th e u n i t n ex t door to th ei r u

n i t w as em

pty an d h ad been s o f

or a

n u m ber of y ear s

.

I n h er s tatem

en t to pol i ce, M or g an r ecal l ed addi ti on al detai l s abou t th at n i g h t,

i n cl u di n g th at t

h e p er s on wh o cam e i n u s ed a key to en ter th e con do, an d th at s h e h ear d

7th em g o i n

to th e ki tch en an d th en l eav e a s h or t w hile l ater

. S h e s ai d th at s h e as ked

L awr en ce abou

t i t th e n ex t day

, an d h e tol d h er th at h e h ad g i v en th e key to A l l en to

com e i n to t h e h ou s e. S h e al s o tol d pol i ce t h at s h e h ad s een

A l l en w i th a f

i r ear m

.

L

. W. l ater m

et wi t h a Geor g i a B u

r eau o f I n v es ti g ati on s ketch ar

ti s t to cr eate a

s ketch of t

h e s of ter v oi ced m an w h o h ad appr oach e d h er i n th e p ar ki n g l ot an d

abdu cted h er

. 3 S h or

tl y af ter th e i n ci d en

t, M cDan i el ’ s m

oth er s aw a s ketch on th e n ews

th at s h e th ou g h

t m i g h t l ook l i ke A l l en

, an d M cDan i el l ooked at i t al s o. S h e tes ti f i ed at

tr i al th at s h e as k ed A l l en abou t th e s ketch th at w as on tel ev i si on

. I n i ti al l y

, s h e tes ti f i ed

on l y th at h e tol d h er n ot to wor r y abou t i t an d, at f

i r s t

, con t i n u ed t o den

y th at h e s ai d

an y th i n g s peci f

i c abou t L awr en ce’ s i n

v ol v em en t, bu t af t er r epeatedl y bei n g r ef

r es h ed

wi t h h er s tatem

en t t o pol i ce, McDan i el r ecal l ed tel l i n g p ol i ce th at A l l en h ad tol d h er

th at h e g ot cau g h

t u p i n s om eth i n g wi th L awr en ce, th at a g i r l was r obbed an d r aped,

an d th at i t w as L awr en ce wh o r aped th e g i r l

.

E v i den ce was al so p r es en ted th at t h e f or en s i c s am

pl es col l e c t ed i n th e s ex

u al

as s au l t ex am

i n ati on s per f

or m ed on L

. W

. f

ai l ed t o r ev eal th e pr es en ce of an y h u m an

m al e DNA

, wh i ch th e ex am i n er ex p l ai n ed co uld be th e r es u l t of h er bei n g f or ced to

3 L

. W. n ev er s aw th e oth er m an ’ s f ace an d w a s una b le to m ake an y

i den ti f i cati o n of h i m to pol i ce.

8was h o r th e u s e of con dom s

. H u m an m al e DNA w as d etected on s om e o f t h e s wabs

obtai n ed f r om M

. M

. , th ou g h

, an d t

h i s DNA was su

bs equ en tl y f ou n d to m atch A l l en ’ s

pr o f ile

. L

. W

. al s o i d en

ti f i ed A l l en f

r om a ph o tog

r aph i c l i n e u

p, an d M

. M

. ’ s ph on e

was f ou n d u n der h i s m attr es s i n th e con do wh er e h e l i v ed w i th M cDan i el

. L

. W. was

al s o abl e to i den

ti f y L awr en ce ’ s ve hi cl e as th e on e u s ed i n h er abdu cti on

, an d u pon

s ear ch i n g i t, th e pol i ce f ou n d th e E B T r ecei p t f

r om M

. M. ’ s p u

r ch as e at t

h e

con v en i en ce s tor e on Ol d Nati o n al H i g h way

.

1

. L awr en ce f

i r s t con ten ds th at th e tr i al cou

r t er r ed b y a llo w i ng M cDan i el to

tes ti f y th at A l l en tol d h er th at L awr en ce r aped th e wom en

, 4 ar g u i n g th at th e statem en

ts

wer e h ear s ay an d n o t s u

bject t o th e co- con s pi r ator ex cepti o n

. 5 OCGA § 24- 8- 801 ( d)

( 2 ) ( E ) pr ov i des t

h at “ [ a] d m is s i on s s h al l n ot be ex cl u ded by th e h ear s ay r u l e, ” an d

def i n es an “ adm

i s s i on ” as i n cl u di n g a s t atem en t of f er ed ag ai n s t a par

ty w h i ch i s

4 A r ecor di n g o f a n

u m er o u s tel eph on e con

v er s ati on s between A l l en an d

M cDan i el m ade wh i l e h e was i n jai l wer e p l ay ed f o r th e j u r y

, an d du r i n g on e cal l h e

al s o i m pl i cated L awr en ce. L awr en ce does n ot s peci f i cal l y an d s epar atel y ch al l en g e t h e

adm i s s i on of th i s r ecor di n g

.

5 A m oti on i n l i m

i n e w as f i l ed s eeki n g a r

u l i n g o n th i s i ss u e p r i or to t r ia l. O n

appeal

, L awr en ce does n ot con ten d th at th e S tate f

ai l ed t o pr ov e t h a t a c o n s pi r acy

ex i s ted or th at th e con s pi r acy i n cl u d ed A l l en an d L awr en ce.

9[ a] s tatem en t by a cocon s pi r ator of a p ar ty du r i n g th e cour s e a nd i n

f u r th er an ce of th e con spir a cy

, i n cl u di n g a s tatem en t m ade du

r i n g th e

con ceal m en t ph as e of a con s pi r acy

. A con spi r acy n eed n ot b e ch ar g ed i n

or der to m ake a s tatem

en t adm i s s i bl e u n der th i s s u

bpar ag r aph

.

T h e tr i al cou

r t f ou n d t h e s tatem en ts A l l en m ade to h i s g i r l f

r i en d wer e m

ade du r i n g t h e

con ceal m en

t ph as e of th e con s pi r acy an d th at th e s tatem en t was adm i s s i bl e ev en i f t

h e

g i r l f r i en d wh o tes t i f

i ed abou t A l l e n’ s s t atem en

t was n o t par

t of t h e con s pi r acy

. O n

appeal

, L awr en ce as s er

ts th at th e ex cepti o n does n ot appl y becau se th e tr i al cou r t

er r on eou s l y f

ou n d th at t he gir lf

r i en d was a co- con s pi r ator an d, i n an y ev en t, t h e

s tatem en t was n ot m ade i n f

u r th er an ce o f th e con s pi r acy

.

We beg i n ou

r an al y s i s by con s i der i n g th e tex t of O CGA § 2 4- 8- 801 ( d ) ( 2) ( E )

.

M ahalo I nves tments I

I I

, L L C v. F ir s t Citiz ens B ank & T

r us t Co.

, I

nc.

, 330 Ga. A

pp.

737, 738 ( 769 S E 2d 154) ( 2015)

. Con tr ar y to L awr en ce’ s as s er

ti on s, n o th i n g i n th e tex t

of t h e s t atu te r equ i r es th at McDan i el as th e tes ti f y i n g wi tn es s al s o be a co- con s pi r ator

f or th e ex cepti o n to appl y

. S ee Ron al d L

. Car l s on & M i ch ael S cott Car l s on

, Car l s on

on E v i den ce 560 ( 4th ed. 2016) ( “ I n f act, Ru l e 801 ( d) ( 2 ) ( E ) does n ot n eces s i tate th at

th e wi tn es s tes ti f

y i n g t o co- con s pi r ator s t atem en t be a co- con s pi r ator

, i n s t ead on l y

r equ i r i n g th at th e declar ant be a co- con spi r ator

. ”) B ecau s e i t i s u n di s pu ted t h at A l l en

10was a con s p i r ator

, wh eth er McDan i el was al s o a co- con s pi r ator i s n ot m ater i al to ou r

an al y s i s of wh eth er A l l en ’ s statem en t to M cDan i el f

alls w it h i n th e co- con s pi r ator

ex cepti o n

.

W e n o w tu

r n to th e qu es t i on of wh eth er A l l en ’ s s t atem en t w as m ad e i n

f u r th er an ce of t

h e con s pi r acy

. OCGA § 24- 8- 8 01 ( d) ( 2) ( E ) s peci f i cal l y p r ov i des th at

s tatem en ts m ade du

r ing t h e con ceal m en

t ph as e of th e con s p i r acy ar e “ i n f u r th er an ce

of t h e con s pi r acy

. ” A

n d o u r S u pr em e Cou

r t h as h el d t

h at “ [ f ] or p u r pos es of th e h ear s ay

ex cepti o n

, a con s pi r acy i s deem ed to en du r e s o l o n g as th e par

ti es th er eto attem

pt to

con ceal ei th er th e cr i m

e or th e i den

ti ty of th e per

p etr ator s

. ” ( Ci t ati on an d pu n ctu ati on

om i tted. ) T er r ell v. State

, 300 Ga. 81, 85- 86 ( 2) ( 793 S E 2d 411) ( 2016) ( deci d ed u n der

f or m er O CGA § 24- 3- 5 )

. 6

6 P r i or t o th e en actm en

t of th e New E v i den ce Code, Geor g i a’ s co- con s pi r ator

ex cepti o n to th e h ear s ay r u l e was f ou n d i n f or m er OCGA § 24- 3- 5, w h i ch pr ov i ded:

“ A f ter th e f act o f con s pi r acy i s pr ov ed, th e d ecl ar ati on s by an y on e of th e con s pi r ator s

du r i n g t h e pen d en cy of th e cr i m

i n al pr oject s h al l be adm

i s s i bl e ag ai n st al l

. ” Notabl y

, f or m er O CGA § 24- 3- 5 di d n o t ex pl i ci tl y r equ i r e t

h at th e s t atem en

t to be “ i n

f u r th er an ce” of th e con s pi r acy to be adm i tted. S ee P au l M i l i ch

, Cou r tr oom H an dbook

o n G e o r g i a E

v i d en ce, Co- Con spi r ator ’ s S tatem en ts ( A pr i l 2017) ( “ Geor g i a cas es u n der

th e p r e- 2013 r

u l e u s u al l y i g n or ed t

h e ‘ i n f u r th er an ce r equ i r em en

t’ th at def

i n ed t h e

ex cepti o n at com

m on l aw. ”)

. T h

u s

, cau t i o n i s r equ i r ed bef

or e appl y i n g cas es con s tr

u i n g

f or m er OCGA § 24- 3- 5 i n an al y zi n g th e co- con s pi r ator ex cepti o n n ow codi f i ed at

OCGA § 24- 8- 801 ( d) ( 2) ( E )

. S ee P eoples v. State

, 2 95 Ga. 44, 51( 4) n

. 4 ( 757 S E 2 d

646) ( 2014) ( n oti n g th at f o r m er OCGA § 24- 3- 5 i s br oader th an F eder al Ru l e of

11A l th ou g h L awr en ce ackn owl edg es th at con ceal m en t m a y b e p a r t of a con s pi r acy

,

h e as s er ts th at th e par

ti cu l ar s tatem

en t was n ot m ade i n f

u r th er an ce of th e con s pi r acy

becau se A l l en m er el y sou g h t to as s i g n bl am

e to s om eon e e ls e f

or th e cr i m es

. S ee

Unite d States v. B lakey, 960 F 2d 996 ( 11th Ci r

. 1992)

. H owev er

, B lakey i s r eadi l y

di s ti n g u i s h abl e. T h e co- con s pi r ator i n B lakey m ade th e i n cr i m

i n ati n g s tatem

en ts to t h e

ban k’ s f r au d i n v es ti g ator

, wh i ch

, as th e E l ev en th C ir c uit h el d, was m ade to s h i f t t h e

f ocu s of th e f

or g ed ch eck i n

v es ti g ati on away f

r om h i m s el f t o th e oth er con s p i r ator

. I d

.

at 9 99.

I n con tr as t, A l l en m ade th e s tatem en t t o hi s g i r l f

r i en d af t er s h e becam e

s u s p i ci ou s of h i s i n

v ol v em en t i n th e cr i m e. B y attem

pti n g to m i n i m i ze th e ex ten

t of h i s

i n v o l v em en t, A l l en was tr

y i n g n o t on l y to m

ol l i f y h i s g i r l f r i en d b u t al s o to di s su ade h er

f r om g o i n g to pol i ce, w h i ch i n tur n f ur t he r ed th e ai m of cov er i n g u p both m en ’ s

i n v o l v em en t i n th e cr i m

e. S ee Gr imes v. State

, 296 Ga. 337, 346 ( 2) ( a) ( i i i ) ( 766 S E 2 d

72) ( 2014) ( “ T h e con ceal m en t ph as e was on g o i n g becau s e t h e s t atem en

t s i n qu es ti on

wer e n ot m ade to pol i ce, th e i n v es t i g ati on w as on g oi n g

, an d th e oth er con s pi r ator s

. .

E v i den ce 801 ( d) ( 2) ( E ) an d t ha t o ur n ew OCGA § 24- 8- 801 ( d) ( 2) ( E ) g en er al l y

tr acks th e f

eder al r u l e)

.

12. wer e sti l l at- l ar g e. ”)

. I t can h ar dl y be dou bted th at con ceal i n g th ei r i den ti ti es was on e

of th e pr i m ar

y ai m s of th e con s pi r acy as dem on s tr ated by th e f

act th at t h ey bl i n df ol ded

t h e v i cti m s an d took g r eat ef f or ts to r em ov e an

y DNA f r om th e v i cti m ’ s b o d i e s

.

A ccor di n g l y

, A l l en ’ s s tatem en t was pr oper l y adm

i tted u n der OCGA § 24- 8- 801 ( d) ( 2)

( E )

.

2. L awr en ce al s o con ten ds th at t

h e tr i al cou

r t er r ed by f ai l i n g to i n s tr

u ct th e ju r y

on th e n eces s i ty of accom

pl i ce cor r obor ati on u

n der O CGA § 24- 14- 8 becau se th e on l y

di r ect ev i d en ce th at h e com m i tted th e cr i m es was M cDan i el ’ s tes ti m on y th at A l l en tol d

h er th at L awr en ce com

m i tted th e r apes

. L awr en ce ackn o wl edg es t h at al th ou g h h e

objected wh en th e t

r i al cou r t i n d ic a t e d i ts r ef

u sal t o g i v e th e ch ar g e at th e ch ar g e

con f er en ce, h e di d n ot v oi ce an y objecti on to th e f

ai l u r e to ch ar g e f

ol l o w i n g th e tr i al

cou r t’ s i n s tr u cti on s to th e ju

r y

, an d t h u s th e r ef u s al to ch ar g e wi l l be r ev i ewed on l y f or

pl ai n er r or

. M er r itt v. State

, 292 Ga. 327, 330 ( 2) ( 7 37 S E 2 d 673) ( 2013) ( objecti on

at ch ar g e con f

er en ce does n ot pr es er

v e objecti on to ch ar g e a s s ub s equ en tl y g i v en ) ;

Car ruth v. State

, 290 G a. 342, 347- 48 ( 6) ( 7 21 S E 2d 8 0 ) ( 2 0 1 2 ) ( s am e) ; Jones v.

State

, 3 40 G a. A

pp. 568, 5 73 ( 4 ) ( 798 S E 2 d 87) ( 2017)

.

I n r ev i ewi n g a f

ai l u r e to ch ar g e f

or pl ai n er

r or

, “ w e w i l l r ev er s e t

h e tr i al cou

r t

on l y i f th e i n s tr

u cti on al er

r or was n ot af

f i r m ati v el y wai v ed

. . . , was obv i ou s bey on d

13r eas o n abl e di s p u t e, l i kel y af

f ected th e ou

tcom e of th e pr o ceedi n g s

, an d s er i o us l y

af f ected th e f ai r n es s

, i n teg r i ty

, o r p u

b l i c r e p u t a ti on of ju di ci al pr oceedi n g s. ” Her r ington

v. State, 300 G a. 149, 151 ( 2) ( 794 S E 2d 145) ( 2 016) ; F er gus on v. State

, 3 35 Ga. A

pp.

862, 870 ( 3) ( 7 83 S E 2 d 380) ( 2016)

.

I t i s tr u e th at ou r cas e an d s tatu

tor y l aw p l ai n l y r equ i r e a ch ar g e on cor r obor ati on

wh en an accom

pl i ce i s th e on l y wi tn es s tes t i f y i n g abou

t an i n cu l pator y f act. A n d

L awr en ce cor

r ectl y poi n

ts ou t th at o u r S u pr em e Cou

r t h as s p eci f

i cal l y deter

m i n ed th at

th e f ai l u r e to do s o m ay u

n der cer tai n ci r cu

m s tan ces con sti tu

te p l ai n er r or n eces s i tati n g

a r etr i al

. S ee Stanbur

y v. State

, 299 Ga. 125, 129 ( 2) ( 786 S E 2d 672) ( 2 016)

. H owev er

,

we h av e f

o u n d n o di r e c t au

t h or i ty

, an d L awr en ce h as ci ted n on e, 1 4 i n wh i ch ou r

1 4 I n h i s r e p ly b r ie f

, L awr en ce ci tes cas es i n w h i ch th i s Cou r t h as con s i der ed

ev i den t i ar y s u f f i ci en cy ch al l en g es bas ed on l ack of cor r obor ati on of an accom

pl i ce’ s

s tatem en t th at wer e adm

i tted th r ou g h th e “ th i r d h an d” t es ti m o n y of oth er wi tn es s es

. B u

t

n on e of th es e cas es pl ai n l y addr es s th e i ss u e of wh eth er th e tr i al cou r t was r equ i r ed to

i n s tr u ct t h e ju r y on th e n eces s i ty of cor

r obor ati on of th e wi t

n es s ’ s tes t i m

on y abou t t h e

accom pl i ce’ s i n cu l

pator y s tatem en t. S ee A dams v. State

, 191 Ga. A pp. 16, 18 ( 3) ( 381

S E 2d 69) ( 1989) ( cor

r obor ati o n n eces s ar

y w h en accom

pl i ce’ s statem en

t to pol i ce was

adm i tted at tr i al ou

t o f n eces s i ty ) ; Davis v. State

, 1 78 Ga. A pp. 7 60, 762 ( 2) ( 344 S E 2 d

730) ( 1986) ( i ss u e was wh eth er accom pl i ce’ s p r i o r i n con s i sten

t s t atem en t i m pl i cati n g

def en dan t was su f f i ci en tl y cor r obor ated) ; M

cCauley v. S

tate

, 177 Ga. A

pp. 426 ( 339

S E 2d 3 99) ( 1986) ( co- con spi r ator ’ s pr i or i n con s i s t en t s tatem en t was th e on l y ev i den ce

l i n ki n g d ef en dan t to th e cr im e an d th

u s r ev er sal r equ i r ed w h en n o cor r obor ati n g

ev i den ce) ; M

cDonnell v. S

tate

, 166 Ga. A

pp. 530, 531 ( 2) ( 3 04 S E 2d 733) ( 1983)

( i s su e was wh eth er pr i o r or al s tatem en ts of acco m

pl i ce adm

i tted as s u

bs tan ti v e

14appel la t e c o u r t s h av e h el d th at an accom p l i ce cor r o bor ati on ch ar g e m

u s t be g i v en

wh en

, as h er e, A l l en ’ s s tatem en t i s i n tr odu ced by an o t h e r w it ne s s an d h e does n ot

tes ti f y at tr i al

. 1 5 A

n d OCGA § 24- 14- 8, u

p on wh i ch t

h e a c c o m p l i ce cor r obor ati on

ch ar g e i s bas ed, appl i es by i ts own ter m s wh en “ t

h e on l y wi tn es s i s an accom pl i ce, ”

an d th u s al s o does n ot cl ear l y an s wer th e q u es ti on of wh eth er a cor

r obor ati on ch ar g e

i s r equ i r ed u

n der t h e ci r cu m s t an ces of th i s cas e. 1 6 B ecau s e i t i s n ot “ obv i ou s bey on d

r eas o n abl e di spu

te” f r om ei th er con

tr ol l i n g pr eceden t or th e cl ear tex t of a s t atu te, we

f i n d th at L awr en ce h as f

ai l ed to es tabl i s h th at t

h e tr i al cou

r t pl ai n l y er

r ed by f ai l i n g to

g i v e th i s ch ar g e. S ee Stanbur y

, 299 Ga. at 129 ( 2 )

.

ev i den ce wer e pr oper l y cor r obor ated)

. A l th ou g h t

h es e cas es s tan d f

or th e pr opos i ti on

th at an accom

pl i ce’ s s tatem

en t m u s t be cor r obor ated ev en wh en i t com es i n th r ou g h t h e

tes ti m on y of th i r d par

t i es

, th e i s s u e o f wh eth er an accom pl i ce cor r obor ati on ch ar g e was

or s h ou l d h av e been g i v en was n ot r ai s ed or addr es s ed. A s we h av e ex pl ai n ed on

n u m er ou s occas i on s, “ [ q] u es ti on s wh i ch m er el y l u r k i n t h e r ecor d, n ei th er br ou g h

t to

th e atten ti on of th e cou

r t n or r u l ed u pon

, ar e n ot t o b e c o n s i der ed as h av i n g been s o

deci ded as t o con s t i tu

t e pr eceden ts

. ” P

almer v. State

, 282 G a. 4 66, 468 ( 6 51 S E 2d 86)

( 2 007)

.

1 5 W e no t e th at ou

r S u pr em e Cou

r t h as r ecen tl y h el d t

h at “ wh en con du cti ng

r ev i ew of as s er

ted pl ai n er

r or u n der OCGA § 17- 8- 58 ( b)

, . . . wh eth er an er r or i s ‘ cl ear

or obviou s ’ i s ju dg ed at th e ti m e of th e appel l ate cou r t’ s r ev i ew. ” L

yman v. State

, S 17A 0209, 2017 Ga. L E XI S 376, at * 1 1 ( 2 ) ( May 15, 2017)

.

1 6 We n ote th at al th o u g h th e tr i al cou r t f ou n d th at M cDan i el m ay h av e becom e

a co- con s pi r ator

, th e t

r i al cou r t di d n ot f i n d th at s h e was an accom pl i ce.

153. L as tl y

, L awr en ce ar g u es th at w i th ou

t th e t es ti m

on y con cer n i n g th e h ear s ay

s tatem en t A l l en m ade to M cDan i el abou t h i s i n v ol v em en t, th e ev i den ce i s i n s u f

f i ci en t

to s u ppor t h i s con v i cti on s. H owev er

, as s et ou t i n Di v i s i on 1, we h av e deter m i n ed th at

th e tr i al cou

r t di d n ot er

r i n adm i tti n g th i s tes ti m

on y

. M or eov er

, we h av e i n depen den tl y

e xa m ine d a n d des cr i bed th e ev i den ce p r es en ted at tr i al an d f

i n d i t was m

or e tha n

s u f f i ci en t to au th or i ze a ju

r y to f i n d L a w r e nce g

u i l ty of th e cr i m es ch ar g ed. S ee

Jacks on v. V

ir ginia

, 443 U. S

. 307 ( 99 S Ct 2 781, 61 L E 2 d 560) ( 1979)

. A ccor di n g l y

,

L awr en ce i s n ot en

ti tl ed to r ev er s al on th i s bas i s

.

Judgment affir

med. B ar nes

, P

. J.

, and M

er cier

, J.

, concur

.

16