1 Crawford was indicted by a G winne tt County

grand jur

y in Ma y 2009 a nd charged with one count each of malice m urder, b urglary , and fal se im prisonm ent, and two counts of

felony murder. Follo wing a j ury tr ial held in F ebruary

and Marc h of 2012, Crawf

ord was a cquitted of

mali ce m

urde r but convicte d on the other four counts. Crawf

ord was sente nced t o life im prisonm ent for f

elony m urder, with the other conv ictions merging for sentencing purposes. A timely motion for new trial was filed on Ma rch 7, 2 012, which was ame nded on May 7, 2013. F ollowing a hearing, the new trial motion was denied on June 3, 2013, and Crawford f iledanotice of appeal on June 28, 2013. The appeal was docketed to the September 2013 term

of this Court a

nd was the reafter

submit ted for de cision on the

briefs. 294 Ga. 898 FINAL C OPY

S13A187 5. CRAWFORD v. THE STATE.

HUNSTEIN, Justice. Appella ntDema rcus Cra wford was convicted of f

elony murder, bur glary, and fals e impris onment

in conne ction wi th a Ma rch 25, 20 08 homeinvasion, during which vi ctim

Tedla Lem ma wa s boun d, beaten, suffocate d, and left to die. C rawford appea ls the denial of hi s motion for new t

rial, challe

nging the sufficiency of

the evidenc e corrob orating hi s acc omplic e’s te stimony , the admis sion

of a hearsa y stat eme nt, and t

he giving o f a jury

instruct ionon the law of con spir acy. Fin ding no err or, we af firm. 1 Viewedin the light most favo rable to the verd ict, the evidence addu ced at trial e stablis hed as f

ollows. On Marc h 25, 200 8, Gwinnett Cou nty police, dispatched to perform a w elfare chec k at a Lilburn residence , found Tedla2 Though Ar aya kn ew Cra

wford onl y by the na me “ Mon ey Marc,” evidence confirmed

Crawfo rd’s use of this moniker, a nd Araya identifi ed Craw ford as the Lemma dead and the home in disarra y. Le mma

was bound with te levision cables and nec kties a

ndhad suffered multipleinjurie s to his fa ce, eyes, testic les, head, neck, and ribs, and

his fac e was c overed w ith an a dult diap er. Ac cording to the m edical exam

iner, the ca

use of his dea th was m echan ical ob structi on of the nose and mout h, combined with b lunt force tr auma. State’ s witness Lorn a Araya, who testified as part of a plea de al, wa s the admitted mastermind of the bu rglary. Araya testified at len gth regardi ng her planning and exec ution of seve ral burgl aries in late 2007 and e arly 20 08, whereb yshe targeted fellow members of an Ethiopian c ommunity in Gwinnett County who she kn ew we re like ly to ha ve substa ntial c ash or othe

r valua bles. In Novembe r and De cember 20 07, Ar aya testi fied, s he stag ed thr ee home invasions

. The first of th ese, on the nigh t of November 7, 20 07, w as at the Lemma home, from w

hich Ara ya an dher two accom

plices , Quincy

Jackson and Ram on Ferguson, stole approximate ly $50,00 0 in cas h. Thesecond a nd third burglaries were c arried

out by the

same thr ee individu als, as well as Marshae Brooks. Arayafurther testif

ied th at, somet ime in earl

y 2008, sh e me t Craw ford 2 atperson she k new as “Money Marc” in both a pre- trial line

up and at tr

ial. 2 a party, at which Jackson asked Araya, in Crawford ’s presence, about a ny future robberies being plann ed. Araya replied that sh e had no anticip ated “moves” at that timebut that when she di d, she w oul d let Jackson k now. Subseq uently, Jackson contac ted Ara

ya to di scuss the

possibili ty of

target ing th e Lemma

home again, and they decided to try. A few days prior to c arryin g out the burgl ary, the two discussed th eir plan and deter minedthat, rather t han going at night as they had the first time, the y would a ttem pt the bre ak-in during the day wh en no one was home. On the m orning of Ma

rch 25, 20 08, Jac ksonand Brook s drove to A raya ’s home, with Cra

wford ac compa

nying them. Araya

testifi ed that

she ask ed why Crawfo rd was with them, and Jackso n respond ed that Crawford needed mon ey. Araya p roceeded to dri ve the three men to the Lemmas’ home, where sh e dropped off the m en and drove up the street to wait. Jackso n called a shor t time laterand aske d her to back the c ar int o the Lem mas’ g arage , whic h she did. Arayarema

ined in th e Lem

mas’ g arage

keeping watc h during the

35 to 45 minutes her three compa

triots were loading t

he ca r with it ems stolen from

the3

home. In the car afterw a rds, th ere was mention of th e fact that someone had been inside th e home during th e burglary. That evening, after the news media began re porting on L emm a’s mu

rder, the three men reconvened at Araya ’s home . Acc ording to Araya, Jackson and Brooks told her that u pon enterin g the Lemma house, they had been startled to find someo ne prese

nt. They told Araya t

hat the y ha d ti ed up the man, put an adult diaper o ver his head, and left him that way. In additi on to Ara

ya’s te stimony , the St ate pre sented cellul ar phone records refle cting num erous phone calls betwe en Brooks , Jackson , Aray a, and Crawfo rd on the m orning of Ma

rch 25, 20 08. The se rec ords also contained cell tower data that tracked Jacks on’s cell pho ne, on the mornin g of the crimes, as h a ving travel ed on Interstate 285 to the cell t ower ra nge enc ompass ing Crawfo rd’s residence and then to th e cell t ower ra nge enc ompass ing Aray a’s home. Three calls were subsequently plac ed from Jackson’s phone via the c ell tower servic ing the L emm a home be tween 12:5 0 and 12:57 p .m., and by 1: 24 p.m., cell d ata re flect ed that Ja ckson’ s phone was head ing away from that location and was nearing Crawfor d’s residen ce at approximately 2:00 p.m. 1. In his first

enumeration of err or, Crawford co ntends that t he evidence3 Under the new Georgia Evidence Code, ef fective for trials conduct ed on or after Ja nuary 1, 2013, t

his language

is now codi fied at O CGA § 24- 14-8. 4 is insuffic ient

to sustain a

ny of his c onviction s beca use the y areall ba sed on the uncorrob orated testimony of Araya, an admitted accomplice. Under for mer OCGA § 24-4-8, [in] felony cases where the o nly wi tness is an ac compl ice, the testimony of a singl e witne ss shall

not be suffic ient. N everthe less, corrobora ting circum stance s may

dispense with the necessity fo r the testimony of a sec ond

witness, except in

prosecu tions for t reason. 3 Thus, in felony cases in wh ich the State relies on the testimony o f an accomplice to the crimes, in order to justify submitt ing the c ase for the j ury’s de term ination, the State must pre sent the testimony

of at le ast

one othe r witne ss or evid ence of corrobora ting circumstances. Hamm v. State , 294 Ga. ___ ( ___ SE2d ___) (2014). The additional ev idence that is required “may be circumstant ial and it may be slight, a nd it nee d not of itse lf be suff icient to warr ant a c onviction

of the crime charged.” (Citation s and punctu ation omitted.) Johnson v. State , 288 Ga. 803, 805 (2) (708 SE 2d 331) (2011); acco rd Willi ams v. State , 280 Ga . 584 (1) (630 SE2d 370) (2006); Selvidge v. S tat e , 252 Ga . 243, 245 ( 313 SE2d 84) (1984). It must , howev e r, be indep endent o f the ac compl ice’s testimony and5

either direct

ly conne ct the defenda

ntwith the

crim e or justi fyan inference that he is guilty. Johnson , 288 Ga. at 805; Willi ams , 280 Ga. at 585- 586. In addit ion, the indepen dent evi dencemust c orroborat e both the identit y of the defenda ntand the fact of his participation in the crime. See Kesler v. State , 249 Ga. 462 (2) (291 SE2d 497) (1982); Birt v. State , 236 Ga . 815 (225 SE2d 248) (1976). In other w ords, co rroborati on of only th e chronol ogy and details of the crimes is not

suffici ent, a

nd there must be some independent evide nce tending to show t hat th e defend ant hi ms elf was a participant in the crimes. West v. State , 232 Ga. 861 ( 2) (209 S E2d 195) ( 1974). Once th e State adduces such evidence, it is “peculiarl y a matter for the jury to d etermine” whether the

e vidence suffici ently c orroborat es the accom plice’ s testim

ony and w arrant s a conviction

. Selvidge , 252 Ga . at 245; acco rd Johnson , 288 Ga . at 805. Here, the entir e ch ronolog y of the planni ng and executio n of the March 25, 2008 burglary was provided by Araya ’s testimony; neit her Jack son, who was tried separa

tely, nor Brooks, who pled g uilty, testifi ed at C rawford’ s trial. There

were no eye witness descri ptions nor

any physical evidence linking Crawford to the crimes. Apart f

rom Araya’s testimony, the cell phone re cords were the only evidence specifically implicating Crawford in th e M arch 25, 2008 c rime s.6

Crawfo rd argues that the phone records are by them selves insufficient to corroborate his ident

ity and participation in

the crimes, because they

reflect only the fact th at pho ne calls were ma de and they ne ither reveal th e content of the

convers ations n or ev en confirm that Crawfo rd himself, as opp osed to some oth er person us ing his ph one, was a party to the calls

. The phone record s enabled the jury to conc lude tha

t, prior to traveling to the Lem ma home on themorning of the c rime s, Jac ksontraveled to Crawf ord’s home and then to Araya’s home a nd that, a fter the burg lary, Jackson trav eled backto Crawford’ s home. In additio n, the phon e r ecords r e flect ed a tot al of four phone ca

lls be tween

J ackson’ s phone num

ber and C rawford’ s phone number s betwe en 9:47 a .m. and 11:04 a .m. on the m orning o f the crim es. Though we recognize that these r ecords prov ided only circumstantial eviden ce of Crawford’s participation in the crimes, we agree wi th the trial c ourt’s findi ng that this evidenc e was s ufficientto support s ubmissi on of the c ase to t he jury for its determination. See Willi ams , 280 Ga. a t 586 (“‘[ s]light evid ence from an extrane ous source identifying the a ccus ed as a participator i n the criminal act will be suffic ient co rroborati on of the accom plice to support

a verdic t’”). The jury was properly

instruct ed on therequire ment t hat an accom

plice’ s testim

ony7

be corroborated and, with this instr uction, was the p roper arbiter of the we ight the phone records should be afforded in establishing Craw ford’s complicity in the crimes. See Johnson , 288 Ga. at 805 ; Selvidge , 252 Ga . at 245. The evidence was thus suffici ent to c orroborat e Aray a’s t e stimony under f ormer OCGA§ 24-4-8. Se e, e.g., Selvidge , 252 Ga . at 245 ( evidenc e corrob orating defenda nt’s identit

y and pa rticipa tion was sufficient); Gunter v. State , 243 Ga. 651 (2) (256 SE 2d 341) (1 979) (same); West , 232 Ga. at 861 (sam e). This being the case, the evidence was also su fficient to enab le a rational trier o f fact to conclude beyond a rea sonable doubt that Crawford was guilty of the crimes of which he was convi cted. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC t 2781, 61 LE2d 560 ) (1979)

. 2. Crawford cont ends that the tria l court erred in allowing A raya to testi fy that, when she

asked Jackson wh y Crawford was joi ning them in the Ma rch 25, 2008 burglary , Jac ksontold her that Crawford “h ad som e person al things going

on and needed money.” Crawford argues that this hearsay statement was improperly

admitted under former OCGA § 24-3-5, wh ich at the time provided that “the de clara

tions by any

one of the con spirator s during the pendenc y of the4 Under the new Ge orgia Evi dence Code , the co-conspir ator hear say ex ception is now codified at OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (E). 8 criminal project shall b e admissible against all .” 4 Th e co-conspirat or hearsay excep tion permits admis sion of

the hea rsay st atem ent of a

co-cons pirator, made in the course of th e conspiracy, so lo ng as a prima facie case of consp iracy has been establ ished a

part from the hearsay statement itself. See Lewis v. State , 291 Ga. 273 (3) (c) (731 SE2d 51) (201 2). Here, there was prima facie evidence, apart f rom Jackson’s hearsay statement, of a conspiracy among Araya, Jackson, Brook s, and Crawford to burglarize the Lemma residence. See Griffin v. State , 294 Ga. 325 (751 SE2d 773) (2013) (con spirac y consi sts of an a greem ent betwe en two or

more persons to commit a crime) ; Lewis , 291 Ga. at 277 (conduc t revea ling a common design

even without proof of express agreement m a y esta blish a c onspirac y). Specifically, there was evidence that Ar aya and Jackson d iscussed their plan to burglarize the Le mma

reside nce a

second time, that Crawford an d Brooks j oined in the exe cution of that pl an, an d that Crawford, Aray a, and Brooks all communicated with Jackson by phone in t he h ours prior to th e burglary. Jackson ’s hearsa

y stat eme nt was made as the partic ipants a ssemb led bef ore9

emba rking for thei r targe ted burgla ry site and thus was clearly

made “during the pende ncy of

the criminal

projec t” as r equired

under former OCG

A § 24-3-5. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admi tting Ja ckson’s hearsay statement. 3. In his fin al enumeration, Crawfor d contends t hat the trial cour t erred in instruct

ing the jury

on the la w of consp iracy . Give n our holding in D ivision 2 that there was evidenc e to suppor t the fin ding o f a cons piracy among t he participants in the L emm a burgla ry, the trial c ourt did not err in giving this instruct ion. See Hicks v. State , 287 Ga . 260 (2) (69 5 SE2d 195) (2010) (jury charge warra nted if sl ight evid ence supports it ). Judgme nt affir

med. All the

Justice s concur .

Decid ed March 28, 2014. Murder. Gwinnett Superior Court. Be fore Judge Hamil. Marya nn F. Blend , for appellant. Daniel J. Porte r, Dist

rict At torney, Ju stin D . Unger, Assistan t District Attorney, Samuel S. Olens, Attor ney General, Patrici a B. A ttawa y Burton , Deputy Attorney General, Paula

K. Sm ith, Se nior

Assistant Atto rney General ,10

for appellee.