Hopson v. State
307 Ga. App. 49
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- Hopson was indicted on rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated sodomy; he was convicted of rape, but acquitted on all other charges.
- Hopson filed an Extraordinary Motion for New Trial (January 31, 2007) alleging the prosecutor knew the victim and another witness were lying and had an ethical duty to stop the trial.
- A recording revealed the prosecutor stated he knew, at one point, that the witnesses lied, but the prosecutor later claimed it was only his opinion and related to kidnapping, not rape.
- The prosecutor offered Hopson’s family $15,000 to obtain Hopson’s release and indicated his name could not be on pleadings due to conflict of interest; the family did not hire him.
- The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court later affirmed, holding the extraordinary motion failed under Timberlake v. State and related authorities.
- The court noted the underlying facts about the conflicting trial testimony were already argued at trial, and the jury acquitted Hopson on the kidnapping charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the extraordinary motion for new trial meets Timberlake requirements | Hopson argues new evidence meets Timberlake criteria. | State argues the statements were opinion, not admissible new evidence, and insufficient to change outcome. | No; Timberlake criteria not satisfied; evidence would not likely yield a different verdict. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial | Hopson asserts misconduct due to post-trial statements by Joshi. | State contends post-trial statements do not establish grounds for a new trial. | No; post-trial statements merely impeach trial testimony and are insufficient for new trial. |
| Whether Joshi's admitted conflict and statements could justify a new trial | Hopson asserts Joshi’s conflict and statements undermine trial integrity. | State contends statements were inconsequential and inadmissible or insufficient to alter outcome. | No; the only effect would be impeachment; no new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (Ga. 1980) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence; admissibility required)
- O'Neal v. State, 304 Ga.App. 548 (Ga. App. 2010) (victim credibility cannot be bolstered by another witness; opinions on truthfulness not admissible)
- Norwood v. State, 273 Ga. 352 (Ga. 2001) (post-trial statements showing false testimony generally insufficient for new trial)
- Cooper v. State, 287 Ga. 861 (Ga. 2010) (new trial not warranted despite testimony claiming false testimony and prosecutorial influence)
- Crowe v. State, 265 Ga. 582 (Ga. 1995) (extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored; stricter standard applied)