EDWARDS v. STATE (2026)

Appellant James Wansley Edwards appeals his convictions for felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Jennifer Menzies.¹ On the night of the crimes, Edwards, Menzies, and Edwards's co-indictees were attempting an armed robbery, when Menzies was shot by one of the intended victims of the robbery. On appeal, Edwards argues that his convictions should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions since the State failed to adequately corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, Jaquan House, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly cross-examine a witness. Because the corroborating evidence in this case sufficiently supports the accomplice testimony and because Edwards's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is procedurally barred by his failure to raise that claim at the motion-for-new-trial stage, we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that, on the morning of December 10, 2013, Christina Menzies, the sister of victim Jennifer Menzies, contacted Kap Sims—a woman who sold hair extensions and from whom Christina had “bought lots of hair” over the years—to inquire about making a hair purchase. Christina and Sims set up a meeting for the following night, December 11, and Christina asked Sims to “bring lots of hair, extra hair,” explaining that several of Christina's female relatives were also interested in buying hair extensions from Sims. Christina also asked Sims to come alone to the meeting, and Sims responded that she was not inclined to meet Christina by herself and would bring either a friend or her boyfriend with her. Sims testified that this was the first time Christina had ever asked Sims to come by herself to conduct a hair transaction.

Later in the day on December 10, Menzies called House, who she “used to date,” and told him she and Christina had lined up a “jug,” which—according to House—meant “an armed robbery.” Menzies then set up a “three-way” call between herself, Christina, and House. During the call, Menzies and Christina explained to House that, on the night of December 11, they planned to “rob the lady to get the hair” and needed House's help, including finding another person to participate in the robbery.² House told Menzies and Christina that he would “get back to them” after he tried to find somebody to assist in the robbery. That night, House sent a text message to his friend Brandon Lamothe, explaining “the whole thing.” House did not hear back from Lamothe because Lamothe's phone was dead, so the next day, December 11, House texted Edwards—who was a good friend of House's and “like brothers” with Lamothe—to see if Edwards and Lamothe were together. Edwards indicated that Lamothe was with him, so House went to Edwards's house to discuss the robbery. Edwards and Lamothe agreed to participate in the robbery, and the group discussed the fact that they would “need a gun.”

Around 6:30 p.m. on December 11, Edwards and House met with House's friend, Miyata Callaway, to inquire about borrowing her car. Callaway, who drove a silver/gray 2005 Chevrolet Malibu, agreed to lend the car to Edwards and House for the evening. Edwards and House then drove Callaway's car to pick up Lamothe, and the three men “drove to pick up the gun” from another location. After getting the gun, they met at Menzie's house to finalize plans for the robbery that night, deciding to conduct the robbery at a residential subdivision in Conyers.

According to Sims, she and Christina had originally arranged to meet at a shopping center in Conyers around 9:30 p.m. on the night of December 11 to complete the hair transaction. Sims's boyfriend, Barry Morton, accompanied Sims to her meeting with Christina, and they drove to the meeting place in Morton's truck. When Sims and Morton arrived at the shopping center, Christina was not there. After waiting for several minutes, Sims received a call from Christina, who asked Sims to meet her instead at the swimming pool area of a Conyers subdivision.

House testified that, shortly after Christina spoke to Sims on the phone, Christina left Menzies's house in a white Honda Civic and drove to the subdivision to wait for Sims. Edwards, House, Lamothe, and Menzies soon followed in Callaway's car. Upon arriving at the subdivision, Christina backed her car into a parking place in a dark corner of the parking lot near the swimming pool, and House parked Callaway's car on the other side of the parking lot by the pool house. When Morton and Sims arrived at the subdivision, they entered the parking lot by the swimming pool and pulled in next to Christina's car, so the driver's side of Morton's truck was adjacent to the driver's side of Christina's car. Morton, who was driving, rolled down the driver's side window, and Sims got out of the passenger's side of the truck. Christina also exited her vehicle and walked over to the passenger's side of Morton's truck. The hair extensions—about “thirty packs”—were on the back seat of the truck, so Sims opened the back passenger's side door to show Christina what she had brought. Sims asked Christina why she had parked in such a dark area without any lighting because they would have difficulty seeing the hair. Christina responded, “police,” and Sims said she was not worried about the police because they were not doing anything wrong. Christina looked briefly at the hair extensions on the back seat and then took out her cell phone, telling Sims that she was texting with her relatives, who would be there in about 15 minutes to look at the hair.

House testified that the group had been sitting in Callaway's car by the pool house for “about ten minutes” when Christina contacted them to say, “[T]hey're here. Everybody get in their places. We're ready.” According to House, everyone in the group was wearing dark clothing; he was wearing a gray cloth “around his face”; and Menzies was wearing a “red bandana around her face.” House testified that Edwards “wanted to hold the gun” they had picked up earlier because it was “his,” but the rest of the group was unarmed. Lamothe stayed in the car with his phone on “in case one of [them] had to call him.” Edwards, House, and Menzies then walked behind the pool house and started to approach Morton's truck. When the group got closer, they realized Sims was with a man, who was sitting in the driver's seat of the truck. When House reached the truck, he heard Sims make “like a shocking noise,” and he turned around and saw Edwards “pointing the gun through the back of the truck toward the man in the front seat.” House testified that, as soon as Edwards pulled his weapon, House “panicked” and started running towards the entrance of the subdivision, and as he was running away, he heard gunshots.

According to Sims, a few minutes after Christina said her relatives were on the way to look at the hair, “a gunman” ran up behind them and said, “[B]end down and drop everything that you have.” Sims testified that “the gunman” was “moving towards the front passenger door,” pointing a gun in Morton's direction. Sims exclaimed, “Oh, my God.” Morton testified that he heard Sims make this exclamation, and when he looked in her direction, “a gun was pointed in [his] face.” Morton “raised [his] hands and said, ‘you don't have to do this,’ ” “thinking to [him]self, this guy is going to kill me over some hair.” The man fired at Morton but missed. The shooter then fired again and shattered the back window of the truck.³ Morton, who worked in security, testified that he was “terrified for [his] life,” so he reached down and grabbed a .40-caliber handgun, which he was licensed to carry and kept in “the middle of the seat next to the console.” Morton exited the truck with the handgun, moved to the rear of the truck, and started shooting in the direction of the man who had been shooting at him.⁴ Morton testified that, not including Christina, three other people approached his truck that night—the man who shot at Morton several times and then ran off; another person who approached the truck and ran towards the entrance of the subdivision when the shooting started; and a third person who “came out of nowhere” after the initial shooter ran away; Morton was unable to identify any of them because they were wearing masks. When the third person started to approach the truck, Morton was concerned this person was “coming back to finish the job,” so he fired his weapon “twice,” striking the person. The person he struck—later determined to be Menzies—started heading back towards the pool house, walking at first and then crawling. Sims testified that she also saw three people approach Morton's truck that night, but she could not describe any of them because they were wearing “masks.”

Morton called 911.⁵ While Morton was speaking with the 911 dispatcher, Christina drove her car over to where Menzies was crawling across the parking lot. Christina started pulling Menzies into the car, and Morton told Christina not to leave because he was on the phone with 911 and the injured person—i.e., Menzies—“need[ed] medical attention.” Christina quickly pulled Menzies into the car and “drove off.” Morton gave the tag number for Christina's vehicle to the 911 dispatcher. When law enforcement officers with the Rockdale County Sheriff's Office arrived on the scene a few minutes later, they found Morton and Sims “visibly upset” and “[d]istraught.” Morton and Sims told the officers that they had met a young woman “they knew as Christina” to sell hair extensions; that an attempted “robbery occurred”; that Morton “shot one of the suspects”; and that Christina “grabbed the person who was shot in the parking lot, put her back into the car and fled the scene in a white Honda.” The officers issued a “lookout for a white Honda,” and Christina's car was stopped shortly thereafter. Menzies was transported to the hospital, where she died. The medical examiner testified that Menzies was shot twice—once through the head and once through the leg—and Menzies's cause of death was “gunshot wounds.”

Ottis Radford, who lived across the street from the subdivision where the shooting occurred, testified that he heard several gunshots around 10:30 p.m. on December 11. Radford walked over to a window to see what was going on, and he saw a man wearing “a dark hoodie” emerge from the trees running along the front of the subdivision. According to Radford, this man “[s]tumbled, came out in the street,” was “limping on his left leg,” and was “dragging his left foot.”⁶ Radford said the man was on his phone “the whole time,” and within a minute or two, the man was picked up by a “dark-colored car,” which immediately fled the area.

House testified that, after exiting the subdivision, he kept running up the road and was eventually stopped by a law enforcement officer. When the officer asked where he was coming from, House said he had been at a friend's house. House was eventually detained, and during the early morning hours of December 12, he was interviewed by investigating officers with the Rockdale County Sheriff's Office. According to House, he initially lied and said that he was at a friend's house when the shooting occurred and that, while he heard the gunshots, he did not know what was going on. House testified that, when he learned during the interview that Menzies was dead, he decided to tell the truth because he had not thought anyone would get hurt.⁷ House also told the officers that Edwards and Lamothe participated in the attempted robbery with him.

Late on the night of December 11, Callaway tried unsuccessfully to reach House about returning her car. After the shooting, law enforcement officers located Callaway's vehicle parked in the driveway of an abandoned house outside the subdivision where the shooting occurred. The next day, Callaway received a call from an officer advising that her vehicle had been involved in an incident and was impounded. On December 18, officers asked Callaway to review several photographic lineups to see if she could identify the two men who borrowed her car on December 11. In those photographic lineups, Callaway positively identified House and Edwards as the men who borrowed her car on the night of the shooting.

On December 13, Edwards and Lamothe were apprehended at Edwards's house, and the arresting officers noted that Edwards had an injury to his left leg, which was bandaged, and he was limping. When officers later searched Edwards's house pursuant to a search warrant, they recovered a set of crutches, two cell phones, and a gray bag containing hospital paperwork from DeKalb Medical Center and several items of clothing, including a pair of dark jeans with a tear in the knee area of the left leg. This pair of jeans later tested positive for gunshot residue. A hospital representative from the DeKalb Medical Center testified that, on December 11 at 11:15 p.m., Edwards was admitted to the emergency room with a left knee injury. The name Edwards provided as his next of kin was Lamothe.

On December 19, 2013, officers located a 9mm firearm on the side of the road close to the subdivision where the shooting occurred. A firearms examiner determined that the 9mm shell casings collected at the scene were fired from that 9mm firearm. After securing search warrants for Edwards's cell phone records and to “extract electronic data” from Edwards's cell phone, officers discovered a photograph on the cell phone of a firearm matching the appearance of the 9mm firearm located near the scene. Officers also discovered a photograph of Edwards wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, which was taken at 4:11 a.m. on December 12, 2013, just hours after the shooting.

Additionally, the cell phone records for Edwards's cell phone, which included cell site information, revealed that, between 10:30 p.m. and 10:42 p.m. on December 11, Edwards's cell phone placed six voice calls to a phone number that was later determined to be Lamothe's cell phone number, and the cell tower Edwards's phone utilized for those connections was located right outside the subdivision where the shooting occurred. Later that night, Edwards's cell phone called an unknown recipient, and the cell tower utilized for that call was located close to the DeKalb Medical Center where Edwards received treatment for his knee injury.

1. In his first enumeration of error, Edwards contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions because the State's case against him “relied primarily on the testimony” of House, an admitted accomplice who “initially lied to the police ․, claiming he was not involved and giving false stories of his whereabouts,” and who “had a clear motive to lie to secure a favorable deal from the State.” Edwards argues that, because House was “the only eyewitness to affirmatively identify” Edwards as a participant in the shooting and because the other evidence showed “nothing more than the defendant was seen in the company of the accomplice at the approximate time of the offense charged,” the State failed to sufficiently corroborate House's testimony that Edwards was involved in the crimes under OCGA § 24-14-8, and Edwards's convictions must be set aside. We disagree.

OCGA § 24-14-8 provides, in pertinent part, that

[t]he testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including ․ felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, the testimony of a single witness shall not be sufficient. Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness.

This Court has interpreted OCGA § 24-14-8 to mean that, “where the only witness implicating the defendant is an accomplice, testimony by the accomplice must be corroborated by other evidence implicating the defendant.” Bowdery v. State, 321 Ga. 890, 896 (2025) (cleaned up). We have said that sufficient corroborating evidence (1) “must either directly connect the defendant with the crime or justify an inference that he is guilty”; (2) “must corroborate both the identity of the defendant and the fact of his participation in the crime,” id. (quotation marks omitted); (3) “may be circumstantial, slight, and need not be of itself sufficient to warrant a conviction of the crime charged,” Head v. State, 316 Ga. 406, 411 (2023); and (4) is not required to “match the testimony of the accomplice in every detail,” Bowdery, 321 Ga. at 896 (cleaned up). Here, the trial court instructed the jury on corroboration, and Edwards does not challenge that instruction on appeal. “The sufficiency of corroboration is a matter for the jury to decide, and in considering sufficiency, we must consider all of the evidence that was admitted by the trial court, regardless of whether that evidence was admitted erroneously.” Larkins v. State, 324 Ga. 127, 133 (2026) (quotation marks omitted).

With these principles in mind, we conclude that the State presented sufficient corroborating evidence to support a finding that Edwards committed the crimes of which he was convicted. See Bowdery, 321 Ga. at 896. Here, the evidence, which included ballistics evidence, cell phone evidence, and eyewitness testimony, showed that: (1) a few hours before the incident, Edwards and House borrowed Callaway's car, which was later recovered parked near the crime scene; (2) a witness saw someone wearing a “dark hoodie” leaving the scene after the shooting, and this person was limping and dragging his left foot; (3) Edwards was treated for an injury to his left knee less than an hour after the incident; (4) 9mm shell casings collected at the crime scene were determined to have been fired from a 9mm Jimenez pistol recovered on the side of the road near the crime scene; (5) a photograph of a 9mm firearm matching the 9mm pistol recovered near the scene was found on Edwards's cell phone, and this photograph was taken before the incident occurred; (6) gunshot residue was determined to be present on a pair of jeans found in Edwards's possession at the time of his arrest; (7) that same pair of jeans had a tear in the left knee consistent with having been torn during a fall; (8) a photograph of Edwards wearing a black hoodie was taken by his cell phone a few hours after the shooting; and (9) an examination of Edwards's cell phone records revealed that his phone connected to a cell tower located near the crime scene around the time of the attempted robbery and shooting.

Taken together, this evidence authorized the jury to conclude that House's accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence implicating Edwards in these crimes. See Larkins, 324 Ga. at 134 (concluding that ballistics evidence showing that shell casings matching the defendant's gun were recovered at the crime scene and cell phone records showing that the defendant's cell phone was communicating with the other defendants and was in close proximity to the crime scene when the shooting occurred was sufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony that the defendant participated in the shooting); Bowdery, 321 Ga. at 898 (concluding that cell phone records and testimony about the motive for the shooting sufficiently corroborated the accomplice's testimony identifying the defendant as a participant in the crimes); Poole v. State, 312 Ga. 515, 521–23 (2021) (concluding that physical evidence from the crime scene, a witness's description of the shooting, and cell phone data showing the defendant's cell phone was communicating with his co-defendants’ phones and was in the area of the shooting was sufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony and sufficient to support the defendant's convictions). And, though Edwards argues that this evidence only shows that he was in “the company of the accomplice at the approximate time” the incident occurred, we conclude that the evidence as a whole—including that the 9mm firearm used by the robbers was connected to Edwards, both by the picture on his cell phone and the gunshot residue on his clothes—sufficiently corroborated House's testimony that Edwards was not just present at the crime scene but a participant in these crimes and was also sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude that Edwards was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, see Larkins, 324 Ga. at 134. See also Barber v. State, 314 Ga. 759, 764–65 (2022) (“The sufficiency of the corroboration is a matter for the jury to decide.”). As such, this claim fails.

2. In his last enumeration of error, Edwards claims that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to fully cross-examine Morton at trial about the circumstances surrounding the shooting. In furtherance thereof, Edwards asserts that, although he did not raise this ineffectiveness claim in his motion for new trial or present any evidence in support of this claim at the motion-for-new-trial hearing, this issue was “not waived” because his motion-for-new-trial counsel argued that trial counsel “did not cross[-]examine Mr. Morton sufficiently enough” at trial to “flesh out” Morton's law enforcement background, which would have shown Morton was “calm under pressure” and “could easily have been able to determine” that the victim was unarmed. Edwards contends that, because his motion-for-new-trial counsel essentially argued ineffectiveness in this respect, his case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. We disagree that this claim has been preserved for our review.

“Ineffectiveness claims must be raised and pursued at the earliest practicable moment, which for a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is at the motion for new trial stage if the defendant is no longer represented by the attorney who represented him at trial.” Green v. State, 322 Ga. 811, 812 (2025) (quotation marks omitted). See also Sanders v. State, 323 Ga. 758, 759 (2026), (Peterson, C. J., concurring) (noting our “longstanding rule ․ requiring claims of ineffectiveness of trial counsel to be raised on a motion for new trial”). Here, Edwards did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his initial motion for new trial or “at the earliest practicable moment” after new counsel was appointed to represent him at the motion-for-new-trial hearing.⁸ Green, 322 Ga. at 812 (quotation marks omitted). Additionally, at the motion-for-new-trial hearing, Edwards did not raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; in fact, Edwards's motion-for-new-trial counsel expressly stated that he was “not here alleging that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in this case.” And the trial court's order denying Edwards's motion for new trial did not address or rule on any ineffectiveness-assistance-of-counsel claims.

Accordingly, because Edwards failed to raise an ineffectiveness claim in his motion for new trial and because Edwards's motion-for-new-trial counsel expressly stated at the motion-for-new-trial hearing that he was not raising an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in this case, Edwards has failed to preserve his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on appeal, and there is no ruling on such a claim for this Court to review. See Franklin v. State, 323 Ga. 347, 352 n.4 (2026) (noting that, because the appellant “did not enumerate this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his motion or amended motions for new trial” and because “the trial court did not address this ineffective assistance claim in ruling on [the] motion for new trial,” appellant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was not preserved for the Court's review (cleaned up)); Jones v. State, 294 Ga. 501, 503 (2014) (“Because Appellant did not raise this claim in his motion for new trial or at the hearing and did not obtain a ruling on it from the trial court, he clearly did not preserve it for appellate review.”).

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Menzies was shot and killed on December 11, 2013. On July 8, 2014, a Rockdale County grand jury indicted Edwards, Brandon Jay Lamothe, Jaquan Mareek House, and Christina Menzies for the following counts: felony murder (Count 1); criminal attempt to commit armed robbery (Count 2); aggravated assault of Kap Sims (Count 3); aggravated assault of Barry Morton (Count 4); and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (Count 5). We previously affirmed co-indictee Christina Menzies's convictions in Menzies v. State, 304 Ga. 156 (2018). Edwards's case was severed from his co-indictees’, and he was tried from August 17 to 21, 2015. The jury found Edwards guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Edwards to life in prison with the possibility of parole on Count 1 (felony murder); ten years imprisonment on Count 3 (aggravated assault of Sims) to run consecutively to Count 1; ten years imprisonment on Count 4 (aggravated assault of Morton) to run consecutively to Count 1 and concurrently to Count 3; and five years imprisonment on Count 5 (possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime) to run consecutively to Counts 1, 3, and 4. Count 2 (criminal attempt to commit armed robbery) merged with Count 1. Edwards's trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial on August 28, 2015, and thereafter, the trial court appointed new counsel, who did not file an amended motion for new trial. After holding a hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court denied the motion on January 10, 2019; Edwards did not file a notice of appeal. On April 17, 2025, Edwards filed a motion for out-of-time appeal with new appellate counsel, which was dismissed by the trial court under Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (2022), on May 12, 2025. On July 16, 2025, Edwards filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time notice of appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-39.1(b), and the trial court entered a consent order granting that motion on September 4, 2025. Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal on October 2, 2025, and the case was docketed in this Court to the April 2026 term and submitted for a decision on the briefs.

2.   House testified that his understanding of the plan was that they would sell the hair after they stole it because hair extensions “cost a lot of money.”

3.   Sims testified that she thought Morton had been shot, and she “was so afraid” that she “just fell on the ground and play[ed] dead.”

4.   Officers collected several .40 caliber shell casings, which were fired from Morton's handgun, and several 9mm shell casings, which were fired from the shooter's weapon, at the scene.

5.   Morton's 911 call, which was received by Rockdale County 911 at 10:34 p.m., was admitted at trial and played for the jury.

6.   Radford testified that two streetlights positioned between the subdivision and his front yard lit up the area “like day.”

7.   One of the investigating officers who interviewed House testified that, as soon as the officers told House that Menzies was dead, House was “shocked” and “started getting pretty emotional.”

8.   As noted in footnote 1, Edwards's trial counsel filed a timely motion for new trial on August 28, 2015, and the trial court subsequently appointed new counsel to represent Edwards in March 2018. Edwards's motion-for-new-trial counsel did not file an amended motion for new trial on Edwards's behalf.

LaGrua, Justice.

All the Justices concur, except Warren, P. J., not participating.