Garay v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Hector Garay’s convictions for malice murder, criminal attempt to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a felony, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient as a matter of due process. The Court reasoned that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on both circumstantial and direct evidence, and that the presence of direct statements by the defendant negated the need to apply the statutory circumstantial‑evidence rule.