Fortson v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Fortson’s convictions, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated as a party to the charged crimes. The court also upheld the denial of Fortson’s motion for a new trial because the trial court properly exercised its discretion as the “thirteenth juror,” and it rejected the directed-verdict claim under the same sufficiency standard.