In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Oc to b e r 6 , 2 0 1 4

S 1 4 A0 9 9 7 . HOOKS v . THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Alto n Ho o k s wa s trie d b y a F u lto n Co u nty ju ry a n d c on v ic te d o f th e

m u rd e r o f Dia n e Gib b s, th e m urd e r o f Jim my Gib b s, a n d th e u n la wfu l

p o sse ssio n o f a k n ife d u rin g th e c o m m issio n o f a f e l o n y

. Ho ok s a

p p e a ls,

c o n te n d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is le g a lly in su f f i c i en t to su sta in h is c o n v ic tio n s,

th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it d e n ie d h is m o tio n fo r a m istria l, a n d th a t it e rre d

wh e n it a d m itte d c e rta in e v id e n c e

. Up o n o u r re v ie w o f th e re c o rd a n d b rie fs, we

se e n o e rro r, a n d we a ffirm

. 1

1 Diane and Jim m y Gibbs were killed in Decem ber 1999. Hooks was i ndicted on April

7, 2000, and he was charged with two counts of m alice m urder, two counts of f

e lony m urder,

two counts of aggravated assaul t w i th a deadly weapon, a nd one c o unt of unlawf ul

possession o f a knif

e during the com m ission of a f elony

. His trial com m enced on May 13,

2002, and t h e j u r y r eturned its verdict f our day s later, f

inding Hooks guilty on a ll counts.

Although the trial court m erged the agg r a v a t e d assaults i nto the m urders, it erroneously

sentenced Hooks to four consecutive term s of im prisonm ent f

or lif e f or both of the m alice

m urders and b o t h o f t h e f

elony m urders. See Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369, 371 (4) (434

SE2d 479) (1993) (“W hen the elem ents of m alice and an u nderly ing f elony b oth exist in a

m urder case, the law d oes not preclude verdicts o f guilty of both m a lice and f elony m urder.

However, where there is a single victim

, the def endant m ay be sentenced on either but not1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra ble to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e nc e sh o w s

th a t Dia n e liv e d with h e r so n Jim my in Ov e rlo o k Atla n ta

, a n a pa rtm e n t c o m

p le x

in we st Atla n ta . F or a wh ile

, Dia n e wa s in a ro m a n tic re la tio n sh ip with Ho o k s.

By De c e m

b e r 1 9 9 9

, h owe v e r, th e re la tio nsh ip h a d so ure d

, a n d a ro u n d th a t tim e

,

Ho o ks to ld a re la tiv e th a t Dia n e wa s “ g o in g to m a k e [h im ] d o so m e th in g to h e r.”

On D e c e m

b e r 1 5

, a n e ig hb o r sa w Ho o k s in th e a p a rtm e nt th a t Dia ne a n d Jim m y

both.” (Citation om itted)). The trial court also s entenced Hooks to a c o n secutive term of

im p risonm ent f

or f ive y ears f

o r the unlawf

ul possession of a k

nif e. A f ter Hooks tim ely f

iled

a m otion f

or new trial, the State o f

f e r e d to consent to the court vacating the s entences f or

m urder and resentencing Hooks f or only two counts of m

urder, so long a s Hooks agreed to

withdraw his m otion and waive any appeal. Hooks agreed, he withdrew his m otion f or new

trial, and on O c t o b e r 2 3, 2003 the trial court vacated t he sentences f or m urder and

resentenced Hooks f

o r m urder to two conse c u t i v e term s of im prisonm ent f

or lif e with the

possibility of p arole. N otwithstand i n g h i s a g reem ent, Hooks eventually sought to f ile an

appeal, and in Hooks v. State, 284 Ga. 531 (668 S E2d 718) ( 2008) ( Hooks I), this Court held

that Hooks had n ot actually waived his right of appellate review, in part because his original

sentences f

or m urder were void, and “the [ re]sentencing agreem ent did not have any genuine

value to Hooks.” 2 8 4 Ga. at 533-536 (2). Following our d ecision i n Hooks I

, the trial court

perm itted Hooks to f

ile another m otion f

or new trial, a nd H ooks f

iled such a m otion in April

29, 2011. The trial court denied his m otion on June 20, 2012, and Hooks tim ely f iled a notice

of a ppeal on June 29, 2012. T he case was docketed in this Court f or the April 2014 term and

subm itted f

or decision on the brief

s.

H o o k s c o mp lains in his brief about a n apparent error i n t he June 20, 2012 order

(deny ing his second m otion f or new trial), which ref

er r ed to Hooks as being under two

sentences of lif

e im p risonm ent without the possibili t y o f p arole. B ut Hooks clearly was

resentenced in 2003 to two term s of lif e i m prisonm ent with the possibility of parole (plus f ive

additional y ears to r

un consecutively to the lif e sentences f

or unlawf ul possession of a knif

e

during the com m ission of a f elony ), and he has not been resentenced since 2003. The June

20, 2 012 order did not purp o r t t o r e s e n tence Hooks y et again, and he rem a ins under the

sentences im

posed at his 2003 resentencing.

2sh a re d, n o tin g th a t H o o k s sto o d b y th e fro n t d o o r “[p ] ra c tic a lly th e wh o le d a y ,”

wh ic h th e n e ig h b o r th o u g h t wa s u n u su a l.

Two d a y s la te r, re la tiv e s o f D i a n e a nd Jim my we nt to th e a p a rtm e n t,

c o n c e rn e d th a t th e y h a d n o t h e a rd fro m Dia n e o r Jim my

. Wh e n n o o n e an swe re d

th e d o o r, th e re la tiv e s su m m o n e d a se c u rity g u a rd

, wh o

, in tu rn

, c a lle d fo r p o lic e

o ffic e rs. Th e re sp o n d in g o ffic e rs fo u n d n o e v id e nc e o f a f o r c e d e n try in to th e

a p a rtm e n t

. T he y e n te re d th e a p a rtm e n t, h owe v e r, a n d fo u n d a tra il o f b lo o d

,

wh ic h th e y fo llo we d to a b e d ro o m

. In th e b e d ro o m c lo se ts, th e o ffic e rs

d isc o v e re d Dia n e a n d Jim my ’s b o d ie s. Bo th h a d su sta in e d sta b wo u n d s to th e ir

n e c k s

, a nd Jim my h a d su sta in e d a n u m b e r o f d e fe n siv e wo u nd s a s we ll. Th e

e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t D ia n e h a d b e e n sta b b e d i n a b e d in th a t sa m e b e d ro o m

,

a n d sh e th e n h a d b e e n d ra g g e d to o n e of th e c lo se ts. Jim my e vid e n tly ha d b e e n

sta b b e d in a no th e r ro om

, a n d h e th e n h a d be e n d ra g g e d to a se c o nd c lo se t in th e

b e d ro o m in wh ic h Dia n e wa s sta b b e d

. Alth o u g h th e ty p e o f k nife u se d to in flic t

th e n e c k wo u n d s c o u ld n o t b e id e n t i f i e d de fin itiv e ly

, a t le a st so m e o f th e

d e fe n siv e w o u n d s th a t Jim my su sta in e d w e re sh o wn to h a v e b e e n in flic te d with

a se rra te d k n ife

.

3In a d d itio n

, in v e stig a to rs fo u n d b lo o d in a b a th ro o m o f th e a p a rtm e n t

—

b o th o n a sin k a n d a sh o we r c u rta in

— w h ic h w a s c o n s i s t en t w i th so m e o n e

re c e n tly h a v in g trie d to w a sh b lo o d fro m h is b od y

. In v e sti g a t o rs a lso fo u nd a

n o te in th e a

p a rtm e n t, w h ic h re a d : “ I[,] A lto n [,] ju st k ille d Dia n e a n d my s elf.

P le a se se n d h e lp [.] ” A ha n d writin g e x p e rt la te r c o m p a re d th is n o te to a k n o wn

sa m p le o f Ho o k s’s h a n d writin g a n d c o nc lu d e d th a t Ho o k s wro te th e n o te

.

Also o n De c e mb e r 17

, a n e m plo y e e o f a m o te l ju st ou tsid e Atla n ta

o b se rv e d b lo o d o n th e win d o w o f a ro o m in wh ic h Ho ok s wa s sta y in g, a n d th e

sa m e e m p lo y e e sa w Ho o k s ly in g o n th e b e d

, h is ha n d in a S ty ro fo a m c o n ta in e r.

Th e e m p lo y e e c a lle d fo r p o lic e o ffic e rs, a n d wh e n o ffic e rs re sp o n d e d

, th e y

fo u n d Ho o k s b a rric a d e d in h is ro o m

, a rm e d with a se rra te d k n ife

. Th e o ffic e rs

sa id n o t h i n g to Ho o k s a

bo u t Dia n e a n d Jim my

, bu t Ho o k s re p e a te d ly a sk e d

th e m “ wh a t h e wa s g o in g to b e c h a rg e d w ith ,” an d h e c u t h im se lf with th e k n ife

se v e ra l tim e s. Afte r a twe lv e -h o u r sta n d o ff, a S WAT te a m e n te re d th e ro o m b y

fo rc e

, o ffic e rs a

p p re h e n d e d Ho o k s, an d t h e y to o k h im to a h osp ita l, wh e re h e

wa s a rre ste d fo r th e m

u rd e rs o f Dia n e a n d Jim my

.

At tria l, e v id e n c e o f a n e a rlie r in c id e n t in v o lv in g Ho o ks a n d h is e x -wife

wa s a d m itte d a s a sim ila r tra n sa c tio n

. In th a t in c id e n t, Ho o k s — a rm e d with a

4b o x c u tte r — ha d e n te re d th e h o m e o f h is e x-wife a n d c u t h e r n e c k a s sh e sle p t

i n h e r be d

. 2 A p o lic e o ffic e r te stifie d th a t Ho o k s le ft a n o te in th e h o me o f h i s

e x -wife , in wh ic h h e sa id th a t h e h a d c u t h e r a n d in te n d e d to k ill h im se lf.

Ho o k s c o n te n d s th a t th e e v id e nc e is le g a lly in su ffic ie n t to p ro v e b e y o n d

a re a so n a b le d o u bt th a t h e is gu ilty o f th e c rim e s o f wh ic h h e w a s c on v ic te d

. In

su p p o rt o f th is c o n te ntio n

, Ho o k s p o in ts to th e la c k of a n y e y e witn e ss to th e

m u rd e rs, th e lim ite d p h y sic a l e v id e nc e

, a n d th e fa c t th a t he h a d an a lib i o n

De c e m b e r 1 6, 1 9 9 9

, wh ic h

, h e sa y s, wa s th e d a te th a t th e m e dic a l e x a m in e r

c o n c lu d e d th a t th e m

u rd e rs oc c u rre d

. Bu t Ho o ks is m ista k e n in h is a sse rtio n th a t

th e me d i c a l e x a m in e r te stifie d c o n c lu siv e ly th a t th e m u rd e rs o c c u rre d o n

De c e m b e r 1 6. To th e c o ntra ry

, th e m e d ic a l e x a m in e r te stifie d th a t th e m u rd e rs

c o u ld h a v e o c c u rre d o n De c e m b e r 1 5 o r 1 6

. M o re o v e r, e ve n if th e ju ry b e lie v e d

th e te stim o n y a

b o u t Ho o k s’s a lib i, th a t te stim o n y d id n o t g iv e Ho o k s a n a lib i fo r

th e e n tire d a y o f De c e m

b e r 1 6

. An d to th e e x te n t th a t th e re we re c o n flic ts in th e

e v id e n c e , it wa s fo r th e ju ry a s th e fin de r o f fa c t “ to re so lv e [th o se ] c o n flic ts.”

To lb e rt v

. S ta te

, 2 8 2 Ga

. 2 5 4

, 2 5 6 (1 ) (6 47 S E2 d 5 5 5 ) (2 0 0 7 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

2 His ex-wif

e survived t his incident and testif ied in his t rial f

or the killings of Diane

and Jim m y

.

5In a ll, th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t tria l

— in c lu d in g th e th re a te n in g sta te m e n t m a d e

b y Ho o k s a

b o u t Dia ne p rio r to th e m u rd e rs

, h i s s u sp ic io u s b e h a v io r in th e

a p a rtm e nt th a t Dia n e a n d Jim my sh a re d a ro u n d t h e t im e of th e m urd e rs, h is

c o n fe ssio n in a n ote le ft in th e a p a rtm e nt, his c o nd uc t in th e m o te l (in c lu d in g h is

re p e a te d q u e stio n in g of p o lic e o ffic e rs a b o ut wh a t c h a rg e s h e wo u ld b e fa c in g ),

a n d h is a lm o st id e n tic a l a ssa u lt up o n h is e x -wife

— wa s l eg a l l y s u ffic ie n t to

a u th oriz e a ra tio n a l trie r o f fa c t to fin d b e y on d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t Ho o k s

wa s g u ilty o f two c ou n ts o f m a lic e m u rd e r a n d o n e c o u n t o f u n la wfu l p o sse ssio n

o f a k nife d u rin g th e c o m m issio n of a fe lo n y

. S e e Ja c k so n v

. V irg in ia

, 4 4 3 U. S

.

3 0 7

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 79 ).

2

. Ho ok s c la im s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it d e n ie d h is m o tio n fo r a

m istria l a fte r a p o lic e o ffic e r, h e sa y s, c o m m e n te d u p o n h is in v o c a t i o n o f h is

rig h t to re m a in sile n t. Th e c o m m e n t a b o u t wh ic h H o o k s c o mp l a in s w a s m a d e

a s th e o ffic e r wa s te stify in g a b o u t h a vin g m e t Ho o ks in th e h osp ita l a fte r h e wa s

re m o v e d fro m his m o te l ro o m

. In re sp o n se to a q u e stio n a bo u t “ wh e n

, if e v e r,”

th e o ffic e r p la c e d Ho o k s u n d e r a rre st, th e o ffic e r re plie d, “ I re a d h im h is rig h ts

i mme d i a te ly

. He in d ic a te d th a t he w a s in to o m u c h p a in —”

. Ho o k s p ro m p t l y

o b je c te d to th is te stim o n y

, c la im in g th a t it wa s an im p e rm issib le c o m m e n t u p o n

6h is in vo c a tio n of h is rig h t to re m a in sile n t, a n d Ho o k s m o v e d fo r a m istria l. S e e

Re y n old s v. S ta te

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 7 0

, 7 1 (6 7 3 S E2 d 8 5 4 ) (2 0 0 9 ). Th e tria l c o u rt d e n ie d

h is m o tio n

.

Wh e th e r to d e c la re a m istria l is a m a tte r c o m m itte d to th e so u n d disc re tio n

o f th e tria l c o u rt. Mc Kib bin s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 8 43

, 8 4 8 ( 3 ) ( 7 5 0 S E 2 d 3 1 4 )

(2 0 1 3 ). He re

, e v e n to th e e x te n t th a t a ju ro r m ig h t h a v e su rm ise d th a t th e p o lic e

o ffic e r in te n d e d to sa y th a t Ho o k s wa s in to o m u c h p a i n “ t o s p e a k ” o r “ to

p ro v id e a sta te m e n t,” su c h te stim o n y w o u l d i n d ic a te o n ly th a t Ho o k s d id n o t

sp e a k to th e o ffic e r a t th a t tim e b e c a u se h e wa s in to o m

u c h p a in to d o so

, n o t

b e c a u se h e wa s in v o k in g h is rig h t to re m a in sile n t. An d in an y e v e n t, th e tria l

c o u rt in stru c te d th e ju ry th a t it c ou ld n o t c on sid e r a n y in v oc a t i o n o f su c h a

c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t in re a c h in g its v e rd ic t. S e e F le tc h e r v

. S ta te

, 2 8 4 Ga

. 6 5 3

,

6 5 6 (4 ) (6 7 0 S E 2 d 4 1 1 ) (2 00 8 ). In th is c a se

, we c o nc lu d e th a t th e tria l c o urt

a c te d with in its d isc re tio n wh e n it d e te rm in e d th a t a m istria l b a se d o n th e p o lic e

o ffic e r’s in c o m

p le te re sp on se to th e qu e stio n a b o u t Ho o k s’s a rre st w a s n o t

“ e sse ntia l to p re se rv e [Ho o k s’s] rig h t to a fa ir tria l.” Mc Kib b in s, 2 9 3 Ga

. a t 8 4 9

(3 ) (c ita tio n a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

73

. Ho o k s a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d wh e n it a llo we d a p o lic e

o ffic e r to te stify a

b o u t th e c o n te n ts o f th e n o te th a t Ho ok s le ft wh e n h e a tta c k e d

h is e x-wife

. 3 T h e tria l c o u rt pe rm itte d th e o f f i c e r to te stify th a t Ho o k s

“ a d m i t t[e d ] [in th e n o te ] th a t h e h a d c u t he r a n d in te n d e d to k ill h im se lf.” Bu t

th e S ta te d id n ot pro d u c e th e no te itse lf, a n d Ho o k s c o n te n ds th a t th e S ta te fa ile d

to p re se n t c o m

p e te n t e v id e n c e th a t th e n o te h a d b e e n d e stro y e d

. C o n se qu e n tly

,

th e te stim o n y a

b o ut th e c o nte n ts of th e n o t e, Ho o k s a rg u e s, vio la te d th e b e st

e v id e n c e ru le

.

Un d e r o u r fo rm e r E v id e n c e Co d e

, th e o ld b e st e v id e n c e ru le p ro v id e d th a t

“ [t] h e b e st e v id e n c e wh ic h ex i s ts o f a writin g so u g h t to b e p ro v e d sh a ll b e

p ro d u c e d

, u n le ss its a

bse n c e sh a ll b e sa tisfa c to rily a c c o u nte d fo r[,] ” th a t “ [i] f a

p a p e r sh a ll h a v e b e e n lo st o r d e stro y e d

, p ro o f o f th e fa c t to th e c ou rt sh a ll a d m it

se c o nd a ry e v id e n c e [,] ” a n d th a t wh e th e r a d ilig e n t se a rc h h a s b e e n m a d e fo r th e

3 In additi on, Hooks c laim s that no evidence of his assault u pon his ex-wif

e should

have been adm itted because t hat assault was too sim ilar to the m urders of Diane and Jim m y

,

ma k i n g i t im

possible, H ooks say s, f

or the jury t o r ender a f

air a nd im

partial verdict in thi s

case. But H o o k s h as waived this claim because h e did not raise it in t he trial court. See

Hartm an v. State, 266 Ga. 613, 614 (2) (469 SE2d 163) (1996). Even if the claim were not

waived, it is m eritless. The t rial court gave a lim iting instruction t o ens u r e t h a t the jury

considered the s im i lar transaction evidence f or a proper purpose. And a sim ilar transaction

is required to be s im ilar to th e charged of f ense in order to be adm itted under the rule f or

sim ilar transaction evidence. W illiam s v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (409 SE2d 649) (1991).

8lo st e v id e n c e is a q u e stio n “ fo r th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e [tria l] c o u rt.” F o rm e r

OCGA § § 2 4 -5 -4 (a ) a n d 2 4 -5 -2 1

. 4 He re

, th e S ta te a c c o u n te d fo r th e a b se n c e o f

th e n o t e

, in fo rm in g th e tria l c o u rt th a t on e o f th e p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e y s in th is

c a se h a d d ilig e n tly so u g h t to o b ta in th e no te fro m th e p ro se c utin g a tto rn e y o f th e

c o u n ty in wh ic h th e sim ila r tra n sa c tio n ha d o c c u rre d

, b u t s h e w a s u n a b le to

p ro c ure th e n o t e b e c a

u se it h a d b e e n de stro y e d du rin g th e 1 3 y e ars sin c e th e

sim ila r tra n sa c tio n o c c urre d

. Be c a u se th e S ta te e x p la in e d wh y it wa s u n a b le to

p ro d u c e th e n o te

, it wa s with in th e tria l c o u rt’s d isc re ti o n t o a l lo w th e p o lic e

o f f i c e r to te stify a

b o u t h is re c o lle c tio n o f wh a t th e n o te sa id

. S e e Jo h n so n v

.

S ta te , 2 0 9 Ga . Ap p . 3 9 5 , 3 9 6 (2 ) (4 3 3 S E2 d 6 3 8 ) (1 9 9 3 ).

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

4 H ooks w as t r i e d b e f

o re J anuary 1, 2013, the ef f ective date of t he new Evidence

Code. The f

orm er best evidence rule was superseded in the new Evidence Code by the

provisions of

OCGA § 24-10-1001 et seq.

9