A jury acquitted George Haynes of the major charges arising from a burglary and stabbing death but convicted him of tampering with evidence and financial transaction card fraud. The tampering evidence showed that Haynes disposed of an accomplice’s blood-stained clothing and the victim’s wallet, and the trial court imposed a ten-year felony sentence. Haynes appealed, arguing that the indictment did not clearly identify whether he tampered to prevent his own apprehension or that of his accomplice. The Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed that the charge and verdict were ambiguous. Georgia law treats tampering in a defendant’s own case as a misdemeanor but permits felony punishment when the tampering concerns another person’s prosecution. The indictment alleged that Haynes acted to prevent “the apprehension of each said accused,” while the jury charge and verdict form did not require the jury to specify whose apprehension was intended. As in the Hampton decision, the record therefore could not establish whether the jury found felony or misdemeanor tampering. Haynes was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court vacated the felony tampering sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with its opinion, leaving the judgment otherwise undisturbed.