Hampton v. the State
338 Ga. App. 864
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Hampton was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methamphetamine (statute required knowledge of >=28 grams) and sentenced to 20 years plus 10 years probation. He appealed.
- The operation involved a known informant (Hampton’s employer), an undercover agent, and sellers (Thompson and Collett). A lengthy video of the informant, undercover agent, and Hampton waiting in an agent’s truck was played for the jury.
- Officers later interrupted the transaction; police recovered multiple bags totaling 40.54 grams of methamphetamine from the scene, though Hampton conceded constructive possession of only the 26.26 grams found near Thompson. The jury found constructive possession of at least 28 grams.
- Hampton asserted an entrapment defense: he testified the informant threatened to cut off his work unless Hampton found a meth source; he claimed he would not have arranged the sale but for that pressure.
- Hampton knew the informant’s identity, sought to compel the informant’s testimony about entrapment, and the trial court held an in-camera hearing with the informant (excluding defense). The court denied Hampton’s motion to compel production, concluding the informant’s in-camera testimony was not exculpatory and the video reduced need for live testimony.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support trafficking but held the trial court erred in refusing to allow Hampton to call the informant; reversal and remand for a new trial were ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Hampton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of right to confront/compel informant to testify regarding entrapment | Informant was the only other witness with direct knowledge of alleged coercion; Hampton needed to cross-examine him to present entrapment defense | Informant’s in-camera testimony and the videotape made live testimony unnecessary; State’s interest in protecting informant outweighed need | Reversed: trial court erred — informant’s testimony was material and Hampton entitled to confront him; new trial ordered |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking (>=28 g knowledge) | Argued only 26.26 g tied to him; insufficient proof he knowingly possessed >=28 g | Evidence showed he arranged sale for 28 g and sellers brought >28 g; jury could infer constructive possession of >=28 g | Affirmed as to sufficiency: some competent evidence supported constructive possession of at least 28 g |
| Access to in-camera transcript and post-trial compulsion of informant for new-trial hearing | Needed transcript and informant testimony to establish benefits or coercion and to test informant’s bias/partiality | Trial court already evaluated in-camera testimony; no need to disclose transcript or compel testimony | Court found trial court abused discretion in denying further access/compelled testimony after balancing; informant’s testimony material (leading to reversal) |
| Other claims (ineffective assistance, trial errors) | Argued counsel ineffective and other trial errors | State contended claims were meritless or unlikely to recur on remand | Court: other enumerations without merit or unlikely to arise on retrial; decision reversed on informant issue only |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (informant-identity privilege balanced against defendant’s need; disclosure when informant is material)
- Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160 (Brady and Roviaro applied together for informant disclosure analysis)
- Scott v. State, 295 Ga. 39 (knowledge as element of drug-quantity offenses)
- Boatright v. State, 260 Ga. 534 (confidential informant acting as entrapper may need to be produced if defense is arguably persuasive)