MCFADDEN, C. J., MCMILLIAN, P. J., and GOSS, J.
MCFADDEN, CHIEF JUDGE.
jury trial, Cedric Dunlap was convicted of burglary (OCGA
§ 16-7-1) and criminal damage to property in the second
degree (OCGA § 16-7-23). The trial court denied
Dunlap's motion for new trial, and he appeals. Dunlap
argues that his conviction was based on the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice, which is insufficient to support
the conviction. But his accomplice's testimony was
corroborated and the evidence was sufficient. Dunlap also
argues that the trial court should have exercised his
discretion to grant a new trial. But there is no indication
that the trial court did not exercise his discretion. So we
Sufficiency of the evidence.
appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and the
defendant no longer is presumed innocent. Johnson v.
State, 304 Ga. 610, 612 (1) (b) (820 S.E.2d 690) (2018).
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his criminal conviction, "the relevant
question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B) (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61
L.Ed.2d 560) (1979) (emphasis in original). It is the
function of the jury, not the reviewing court, to resolve
conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to
draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id.
viewed, the evidence shows that on March 15, 2010, Carlos
Moss approached Cedric Dunlap and his brother, Cenica Dunlap,
with the idea of burglarizing a home. In preparation for
carrying out this plan, Cenica Dunlap approached his sister,
who was also the mother of Moss's children, and asked to
borrow her car to run an errand.
borrowing the car, Cenica Dunlap proceeded to pick up Moss
and then later Cedric Dunlap. He drove them to John Wallace
Road. The men parked the car across the street from the house
they were targeting.
and the Dunlap brothers entered the house by kicking in the
front door. Once inside the house, the men removed the
drywall in order to pilfer copper wire from inside the walls.
The three men caused $16, 000 in damage to the house. They
also took three shotguns, a television, and tools.
Moss and the Dunlaps were still at the house, the homeowner
returned to the house. From the driveway, he saw a man
crouching outside his house, stripping wire. The victim
parked his truck to block the burglars' car and called
the police. The victim yelled that he had called law
enforcement. The victim saw three men run from the house
toward the woods. The victim could only identify the
burglars' race, gender, the color of their clothing, and
the approximate age and height of one of them because he was
150 to 200 feet away.
apprehended Moss several hours later that day. Moss
identified Cedric Dunlap and Cenica Dunlap as his
accomplices. Officers found at the victim's house a
baseball cap that was not the victim's. The cap contained
Cedric Dunlap's DNA.
Dunlap argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions because the only evidence that directly
connected him to the crimes charged was the uncorroborated
testimony of Carlos Moss. We disagree.
order to sustain a conviction, testimony by an accomplice to
the crime must be corroborated by other evidence implicating
the defendant. OCGA § 24-14-8; Bradshaw v.
State, 296 Ga. 650, 653-655 (2) (769 S.E.2d 892)
(2015). Corroborating evidence "need not be
sufficient in and of itself to warrant a conviction, so long
as it is independent of the accomplice's testimony and
directly connects the defendant to the crime or leads to the
inference of guilt." Robinson v. State, 303 Ga.
321, 323 (1) (812 S.E.2d 232) (2018) (citation and
punctuation omitted). Even "[s]light evidence from an
extraneous source identifying the accused as a participant in
the criminal act is sufficient corroboration of the
accomplice to support a verdict." Coley v.
State, 305 Ga. 658, 660 (2) (827 S.E.2d 241) (2019)
(citations omitted). Once the state has introduced
independent evidence implicating the defendant, it is for the
jury to decide whether the evidence sufficiently corroborates
the accomplice's testimony and warrants conviction.
Rivera v. State, 304 Ga. 767, 770 (1) (822 S.E.2d
Moss's testimony implicating Cedric Dunlap was
corroborated by the hat found at the scene of the crime
containing Cedric Dunlap's DNA. "Thus, there was
sufficient corroboration of [Moss's] testimony, and
viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a
rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Dunlap]
was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted."
Bradshaw, 296 Ga. at 655 (2). See also Roebuck
v. State, 277 Ga. 200 (1) (586 S.E.2d 651) (2003)
(affirming murder conviction because accomplice's
testimony was sufficiently corroborated by evidence that
defendant's fingerprint was taken from the car in which
victim was killed); Robinson v. State, 259 Ga.App.
555, 558 (2) (578 S.E.2d 214) (2003) (affirming rape
conviction because, although victim could not identify her
assailants, accomplice's testimony that defendant was
involved was corroborated by the presence of defendant's