Hampton v. State
295 Ga. 665
| Ga. | 2014Background
- Hampton and Brownlee went to the victim Jared Taylor’s home on Jan 21, 2011; Taylor was found shot once in the head and died. Hampton admitted involvement at various points and later testified he and Brownlee discussed robbing Taylor and that he accepted stolen cash used to buy items at a mall.
- Surveillance and phone records showed Hampton and Brownlee shopping at Southlake Mall the day of the murder; police recovered soaked clothing and shoes at Hampton’s residence matching crime-scene prints.
- The cell number whose texts were subpoenaed was subscribed to a third party (“Terric White”); the State used subpoenaed text messages between that number and Brownlee at trial.
- Hampton moved for a new trial claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of those texts as unlawfully obtained without a warrant under federal and state law.
- The trial court denied the motion; Hampton appealed, arguing ineffective assistance under Strickland and statutory/Fourth Amendment suppression rights.
Issues
| Issue | Hampton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress subpoenaed text messages | Counsel should have sought suppression because texts were obtained without a warrant in violation of federal and state statutes | Hampton lacked standing to challenge the subpoenaed texts and counsel reasonably used the texts to support the defense | Court held counsel was not ineffective: Hampton lacked standing to suppress, and counsel’s choice to use texts was a reasonable strategy |
| Whether Hampton had statutory or Fourth Amendment standing to suppress texts obtained from a provider via subpoena | Texts obtained without warrant violated OCGA §§ 16-11-66.1/16-11-67 and 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a) so suppression was available | Standing is personal; subscriber was a third party (Terric White). No evidence Hampton was owner or primary user, so he lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy | Court held Hampton lacked standing to challenge the provider subpoena and thus could not invoke statutory or Fourth Amendment suppression remedies |
| Whether the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703) provides a suppression remedy | Hampton argued § 2703(a) required a warrant and supported suppression | Courts have held the SCA does not create a statutory suppression remedy; suppression under state law is only for the person aggrieved | Court noted federal courts reject a suppression remedy under the SCA and relied on standing/Georgia suppression precedent |
| Prejudice: Even if counsel erred, whether there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome | Exclusion of texts would have materially weakened the State’s case and could have changed verdict | Other inculpatory evidence (statements, trial testimony, mall purchases, possession/use of stolen cash, matching shoes) was overwhelming | Court held Hampton could not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the texts |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of evidence standard for criminal convictions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing to challenge a search requires a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (third-party doctrine; no legitimate expectation of privacy in numbers dialed)
- Deleon-Alvarez v. State, 324 Ga. App. 694 (pretrial suppression available only to person aggrieved by unlawful search/seizure)
- Moore v. State, 293 Ga. 676 (failure to make meritless motion does not establish ineffective assistance)
- Hartsfield v. State, 294 Ga. 883 (assessing counsel performance without hindsight)
- Dunn v. State, 291 Ga. 551 (overwhelming evidence can defeat prejudice prong under Strickland)