A jury found Appellant Drexton Handley guilty of the malice murder of William Stillwell and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the guilty verdicts and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for murder and to a consecutive five-year term for the weapons offense. A motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. 1. Construed most strongly in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that the victim stopped his vehicle to purchase crack cocaine and was approached by four or five men. The victim bought some cocaine, but an argument ensued regarding whether the product was worth less than what he had paid. Appellant snatched the victim’s keys out of the ignition, pulled out a handgun, and fatally shot the victim in the right side of his chest. Appellant and all of the men surrounding the vehicle fled the scene. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict for murder, as no forensic or physical evidence was presented to establish his presence or culpability, and the identification witnesses, one of whom recanted at trial and another of whom testified only pursuant to a grant of immunity, were themselves initially suspects and had given inconsistent statements to investigating officers.
However, even in the absence of forensic evidence, the credibility of eyewitness testimony is within the exclusive province of the jury, and the testimony of but a single witness generally is sufficient pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-8. Colzie v. State , 289 Ga. 120, 121 1 __SE2d__ 2011; Reeves v. State , 288 Ga. 545, 546 1 705 SE2d 159 2011. Of course, in felony cases the testimony of an accomplice must be supported by the testimony of at least one other witness or by corroborating circumstances. OCGA § 24-4-8; Herbert v. State , 288 Ga. 843, 844 1 708 SE2d 260 2011. However, we question whether any of the witnesses may be considered an accomplice. See Moore v. State , 288 Ga. 187, 189 1 702 SE2d 176 2010. Moreover, ” ‘the testimony of one accomplice may be used to corroborate that of another.’ Cit.” Herbert v. State , supra. “ The jury is to determine the credibility of witnesses, so the truthfulness of those witnesses, including that of . . . possible accomplices, was for the jury to decide. Cit.” Kinney v. State , 271 Ga. 877, 880 2 525 SE2d 91 2000.
