Stripling v. State
304 Ga. 131
| Ga. | 2018Background
- Victim Khaseim Walton, a drug dealer, was shot and killed near a rooming house in Oakland City, Atlanta; multiple shooters fired .45-caliber rounds from an SUV; 11 casings indicated at least three different guns.
- Appellants Tshombe Stripling and Elijah Brewer were tried and convicted of malice murder, related violent offenses, and criminal street gang activity (Nine Trey Bloods). Both received life sentences plus lengthy consecutive terms.
- Key evidence: eyewitness accounts placing a group from a black SUV at the scene; cell phone belonging to Brewer recovered at the crime scene; cell records showing Brewer, Stripling, and Talib Smith in frequent contact near the shooting; one set of casings matched Stripling’s later firearm.
- Brewer testified that he used the AirDroid app to remotely send texts from his phone after he allegedly lost it, which he argued could explain outgoing texts from his phone near the time of the shooting.
- Procedural posture: convictions affirmed on appeal. Stripling claimed plain error for omission of accomplice-corroboration jury instruction; Brewer challenged sufficiency of gang-activity evidence and trial counsel’s failure to call an AirDroid expert (ineffective assistance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang-activity conviction (Brewer) | State: evidence showed gang membership, gang modus operandi (rob drug dealers), and nexus between crime and gang interests. | Brewer: no nexus shown between alleged acts and intent to further gang. | Held: Evidence sufficient to permit rational jury to find nexus and sustain convictions (Jackson standard). |
| Accomplice-corroboration jury instruction (Stripling) | Stripling: trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct that accomplice testimony must be corroborated. | State: any accomplice evidence did not require that instruction because alleged State witnesses were not shown to be his accomplices in the charged crimes. | Held: No plain error; instruction not required under facts (no controlling precedent mandating it here). |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling AirDroid expert (Brewer) | Brewer: counsel unreasonably relied on Brewer's testimony instead of calling expert to explain AirDroid and rebut State witnesses. | State: strategic choice; Brewer testified about AirDroid consistent with expert; expert could not show Brewer actually used AirDroid then; not objectively unreasonable. | Held: No ineffective assistance; tactical decision was reasonable and outcome not sufficiently likely to change. |
| Corroboration of phone-evidence theory (Brewer) | Brewer: texts from his phone could have been sent remotely via AirDroid, undermining inference he possessed phone at scene. | State: phone found at scene, texts sent from that phone minutes before shooting, other witness statements supported presence. | Held: Jury was entitled to disbelieve remote-control theory; evidence supported inference Brewer was present/participant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets the standard for sufficiency review under evidence construed in favor of the jury)
- Jones v. State, 292 Ga. 656 (proof of intent to further gang interests required for OCGA § 16-15-4(a))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Hamm v. State, 294 Ga. 791 (accomplice-corroboration instruction required when slight evidence supports charge)
- Saffold v. State, 298 Ga. 643 (plain-error standard for unrequested jury instructions)
- Matthews v. State, 301 Ga. 286 (review of ineffective-assistance claims; need not reach both Strickland prongs)
- Brown v. State, 292 Ga. 454 (trial-strategy deference for witness-selection decisions)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (construction of accomplice-corroboration statutory provision)