WOMAN TO FACE NEW TRIAL; APPELLATE JUDGES OVERTURN EARLIER CONVICTION IN CASE.

Byline: Karen Maeshiro Daily News Staff Writer

A Littlerock woman will be retried after an appellate court overturned her conviction on charges she set her home on fire with the help of her stepson and killed her invalid husband, a former LAPD sergeant.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled the judge erred in allowing Joy Hooker's confession into the trial, saying it was obtained improperly by homicide detectives who made implied promises of leniency if she confessed.

``We conclude that under the totality of circumstances defendant's confession was the product of coercive police activity,'' the ruling stated. ``The error in admitting the confession was prejudicial. While defendant might have had a motive to set the fire and the fire investigator concluded the origin of the fire was suspicious in nature, we cannot conclude the admission of her involuntary confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.''

The three-judge appellate panel issued its 16-page opinion last November. Hooker's attorney, Deputy Public Defender Earl Siddall, had made a motion to suppress his client's statements but Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Michael Farrell denied it.

Thomas Hooker, 58, a once-robust Medal of Valor winner debilitated with diabetes and nearly blind, died of smoke inhalation April 19, 1993, from a fire that prosecutors said his wife and adopted son, David Hooker, set in the family's Littlerock home. Police said Joy Hooker and her stepson were having a sexual relationship.

Joy Hooker, now 55, was convicted of first-degree murder in December 1996 and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. She had been serving her sentence in a Chowchilla prison and is now in Los Angeles County jail awaiting her second trial.

David Hooker, 37, was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of arson. He was sentenced to 25 years to life.

Deputy District Attorney Ron Smalstig, who prosecuted the Hookers and will retry Joy Hooker's case, said he thinks the appellate ruling was wrong.

``I don't think they considered all the evidence. I disagree with it basically, but I'm bound by their decision,'' Smalstig said.

The ruling said that Joy Hooker told detectives in a May 1993 interview that she had made a fire in the fireplace earlier in the evening and that after going to bed was awakened about 2 a.m. by David Hooker, who said she had to leave the house because of a fire, records show.

During a June 1, 1993, interview at the Palmdale sheriff's station, two homicide detectives, Doral Riggs and Tom Harris, told Joy Hooker that she was facing a charge of murder but indicated that if she admitted starting the fire because of financial problems and didn't intend for her husband to die, the charges could be different, the ruling said.

``(I)f there was thoughts of burning the house because it was going to be foreclosed in anyway to get rid of the house, but that you didn't intend for Tom to die in the fire, those are some things you might want to consider. . . . You will be admitting to a crime by saying that you knew the house was gonna be burned down, but it may be different than facing what you're facing now, that's murder,'' Riggs told Hooker, according to the ruling.

Harris continued: ``(I)f your intentions were not (for Tom) to die . . . and this thing happened, then that needs to be brought out, because it's like Doral (Riggs) says, it's a crime, but it's not murder,'' the ruling reported.

Joy Hooker at that point said she did not know what to say; ``she went to bed; she was in the bedroom and that was the extent of what she knew,'' the ruling said.

About 10 to 15 minutes later, Joy Hooker told the detectives she wanted to change some of the things she told the officers and indicated that the fire had been intentionally set, records show.

Harris said he made a statement to the effect that it may not be murder if the fire was intentionally set but the victim's death was an accident. He claimed when he made that statement he was not trying to coerce Joy Hooker into confessing or trying to promise her something if she confessed, records show.

The appellate judges said the officers misinformed Joy Hooker regarding the law by omitting any reference to the felony-murder doctrine, under which a suspect can be charged with murder if a death occurs while a felony is committed, even if the death is unintentional. A robber can be charged with murder if an accomplice is shot to death by the victim.

``The deceptive omission created the implicit promise defendant would not be charged with first-degree murder if her confession showed no premeditation,'' the ruling said. ``The clear implication of the officers' remarks was that she would be tried for first-degree murder unless she admitted she started the fire and denied that she premeditated the killing.''

``The uncontradicted evidence establishes that defendant changed her statement only after the representations were made that if she confessed to setting the fire to her house for some other purpose than to kill Tom Hooker she would still be confessing to a crime but not murder,'' the ruling added.

Appellate prosecutors claimed Joy Hooker was warned she was confessing to murder and she indicated she realized what she was doing. ``This warning was not significant in that it came after defendant had fully confessed,'' the ruling said.