Sonya Marie Naylor appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding her guilty as a party to eight counts of sexual abuse of her minor twin daughters, S. N. and K. N., when they were between four and eight years of age. Ms. Naylor and her husband, Phillip Woodrow Naylor the girls’ father were jointly indicted on the charges and tried together. Although there was no evidence that Ms. Naylor directly committed the charged offenses, the jury found that she was guilty as a party to eight offenses that Mr. Naylor was found guilty of directly committing: count 1 aggravated child molestation alleging that he placed his penis on S. N.’s anus in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 c; count 2 aggravated child molestation alleging that he touched S. N.’s vaginal area with his mouth in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 c; count four child molestation alleging that he caused S. N. to touch his penis with her hand in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 a; count five rape alleging that he had carnal knowledge of K. N. in violation of OCGA § 16-6-1 a 2; count six aggravated child molestation alleging that he touched K. N.’s vaginal area resulting in physical injury to the child in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 c; count seven aggravated child molestation alleging that he placed his penis on K. N.’s anus in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 c; count nine child molestation alleging that he touched K. N.’s vaginal area with his penis in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 a; and count ten child molestation alleging that he touched K. N.’s vaginal area with his hand in violation of OCGA § 16-6-4 a. Ms. Naylor contends on appeal that she did not know about these offenses until her daughters revealed them to a therapist and Mr. Naylor was arrested, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty as a party to the offenses. We find the evidence was sufficient to prove that Ms. Naylor was guilty as a party to the offense of child molestation in count four based on evidence that Mr. Naylor caused S. N. to touch his penis with her hand, and that Ms. Naylor knew about and aided and abetted Mr. Naylor’s commission of this offense. We therefore affirm Ms. Naylor’s conviction on count four of the indictment. Because the evidence was insufficient to prove that Ms. Naylor was guilty as a party to the offenses set forth in the remaining seven counts, we reverse her conviction on those counts, vacate the sentence imposed on her on all eight counts, and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing on count four.
A person who intentionally aids or abets in the commission of a crime directly committed by someone else may be charged and convicted as a party to the crime even though the person did not directly commit the crime. OCGA § § 16-2-20 a, b 3; 16-2-21. While mere presence at the scene of the commission of a crime is not sufficient evidence to convict one of being a party thereto, presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred. If the defendant had knowledge of the intended crime and shared in the criminal intent of the principal actor, he is an aider and abettor. Hence, if the defendant was at the scene and did not disapprove or oppose the commission of the offense, a trier of fact may consider such conduct in connection with prior knowledge and would be authorized to conclude the defendant assented to the commission of the offense, that he lent his approval to it, thereby aiding and abetting the commission of the crime. Butler v. State , 194 Ga. App. 208, 209 390 SE2d 278 1990 Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted; Ratana v. State , 297 Ga. App. 747, 748-750 678 SE2d 193 2009.
