Hooper v. State, S22A0289

On Aug. 7, 2015, Timone Hooper was implicated in an attempted armed robbery that resulted in the murder of Lawrence “LB” Bryan and the wounding of Keron Brown; Brown was an eyewitness to masked assailants and a struggle.
Investigators recovered six 9mm shell casings fired from the same Glock; autopsy bullets were consistent with a 9mm Glock. 9mm magazine/backstrap and Glock accessories were later found in the residence and car associated with Hooper’s girlfriend, Tiffany Chisholm.
Cell‑site data and texts placed Hooper’s phone near the crime scene and showed messages to Chisholm about a street being blocked; Chisholm’s car (which Hooper drove that night) was photographed near the scene.
Multiple witnesses reported overhearing Hooper admit involvement (including statements that he “took LB’s life” and described a “tussle”), and a fellow inmate recounted admissions to the same effect; Chisholm admitted removing a gun and giving it to a friend after a warning from Hooper.
Hooper was convicted on Counts 1–17 (including malice murder, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during commission of a crime) and sentenced to life plus additional terms; he appealed asserting ineffective assistance (failure to request corroboration instruction), plain error in not giving that instruction sua sponte, and a public‑trial violation for clearing the courtroom during juror questioning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hooper)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting jury instruction that a confession must be corroborated	Failure to request the statutory corroboration instruction prejudiced the defense because confessions were the State’s main evidence and there were no eyewitness IDs	Several particulars of Hooper’s admissions were corroborated by eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, cell records, and Chisholm’s conduct; no reasonable probability of a different result	Court rejected claim under Strickland — performance not shown prejudicial; corroboration and other strong inculpatory evidence defeated prejudice
2. Plain error for trial court’s sua sponte failure to give corroboration instruction	Court was required to instruct sua sponte on corroboration and omission likely affected outcome	Even if instruction omitted, ample corroboration and strong additional evidence mean omission did not likely affect outcome	Plain‑error review fails; third prong (likely affected outcome) not met
3. Violation of public‑trial right by clearing the courtroom to question a juror about acquaintance with a witness	Clearing the gallery to question the juror violated the Sixth Amendment and state constitution right to a public trial	Defense failed to object contemporaneously at trial; failure to object waives appellate review of the closure	Waived — no contemporaneous objection; appellate review precluded; judgment affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑part ineffective‑assistance test)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (closure of proceedings requires overriding interest, narrowness, consideration of alternatives, and findings)
Muckle v. State, 302 Ga. 675 (corroboration of confession can be satisfied by any particular corroborating evidence)
Clarke v. State, 308 Ga. 630 (plain‑error standard for omitted jury instructions)
Morris v. State, 308 Ga. 520 (failure to contemporaneously object to courtroom closure waives direct appellate review)
English v. State, 300 Ga. 471 (plain‑error analysis regarding jury instructions)
DeLoach v. State, 308 Ga. 283 (Strickland prong analysis guidance)
Hood v. State, 311 Ga. 855 (explaining difficulty of satisfying plain‑error standard)