dissenting.
The sole enumeration of error in both appeals is that the court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal1 because the accomplice’s testimony was uncorroborated. I respectfully dissent because I do not believe OCGA § 24-4-8 applies to juvenile cases.
OCGA § 24-4-8 provides that “[t]he testimony of a single witness is generally sufficient to establish a fact. However, in certain cases, including . . . felony cases where the only witness is an accomplice, *82the testimony of a single witness is not sufficient.”
Decided November 26, 1991. Jay W. Bouldin, for appellants. Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Gina C. Shuman, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.Under OCGA § 15-11-38, an adjudication of delinquency does not result in a conviction of a felony. In the Interest of G. G., 177 Ga. App. 639, 640 (4) (341 SE2d 13) (1986). A felony is defined as “a crime punishable by death, by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for more than 12 months.” OCGA § 16-1-3 (5).
In T. L. T. v. State, 133 Ga. App. 895, 898 (2) (212 SE2d 650) (1975), three judges of this court concluded that the principle stated in OCGA § 24-4-8 should apply to juvenile proceedings. The authority cited, however, dealt with adult felony cases. The extension to juvenile cases was made on the premise that a juvenile charged with delinquency “is entitled by right to have the court apply those common law jurisprudential principles which experience and reason have shown are necessary to give the accused the essence of a fair trial.” Id. at 899. At common law, however, one could be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. LaFray v. State, 48 Ga. App. 133, 134 (1) (172 SE 115) (1933). Neither is the principle encompassed in § 24-4-8 of constitutional magnitude. Gunter v. Hickman, 256 Ga. 315, 317 (348 SE2d 644) (1986) (Gregory, J., concurring).
Section 24-4-8 is clear and straightforward, requiring no interpretation as the intent of the legislature is clear that it applies only to felony cases, which juvenile adjudications are not. Division 2 of T. L. T., supra, and its progeny2 should be overruled.
Considering the testimony of R. P., I would find the evidence legally sufficient. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope joins in this dissent.
A motion for dismissal under Uniform Juvenile Court Rule 11.4 is the appropriate procedure and the motion made is treated as such.
D. W. D. v. State, 136 Ga. App. 304 (221 SE2d 72) (1975); R. T. M. v. State, 138 Ga. App. 92 (1) (225 SE2d 510) (1976); J. B. L. v. State, 144 Ga. App. 223 (241 SE2d 40) (1977).