Adam C. Braseel v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00057-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Adam C. Braseel was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree premeditated murder (merged with felony murder), especially aggravated robbery, attempted first-degree murder (merged on appeal), aggravated assault, and assault; sentenced to life with parole possible.
- The State's case rested mainly on eyewitness identifications by Rebecca Hill (victim’s sister) and Kirk Braden (victim’s nephew); there was no physical evidence directly linking Braseel to the crimes.
- Braden identified Braseel from photographs a few days after the offense; Hill identified Braseel after recovering consciousness from injuries and at trial. Trial counsel did not object to or move to suppress the pretrial photographic identifications, nor did they request a jury instruction on eyewitness identification (Dyle instruction).
- Braseel pursued post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to challenge identifications, failure to move to suppress, failure to request identity instruction, and failure to call alibi witnesses) and other due process concerns; the post-conviction court granted relief and ordered a new trial.
- The State appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the post-conviction court’s factual findings and legal analysis, reversed the grant of relief, reinstated convictions, and remanded with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Braseel's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were pretrial photographic identifications impermissibly suggestive (single-photo line-up)? | Braseel: Braden was shown a single photo and Hill’s identifications were unreliable; counsel ineffective for not suppressing. | State: Record shows multiple photos were shown; not impermissibly suggestive; no basis for suppression. | Court: Identification by Braden was not a single-photo display; record preponderates against post-conviction finding of impermissive single-photo lineup. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress identifications? | Braseel: Counsel should have moved to suppress the identifications. | State: Any motion would likely fail; petitioner failed to prove a suppressible defect or prejudice at the post-conviction hearing. | Court: Petitioner failed to show a meritorious motion would have succeeded or that he was prejudiced; no relief. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to notice/argue misidentification by Hill at trial? | Braseel: Counsel failed to point out Hill’s prior failures/misidentifications. | State: Trial transcript shows Hill identified Braseel; post-conviction record does not support misidentification claim. | Court: Post-conviction court’s finding of misidentification is contradicted by trial record; no ineffective assistance. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to request the Dyle eyewitness-identification jury instruction? | Braseel: Counsel should have requested the instruction; identity was a material issue. | State: Concedes counsel erred in not requesting instruction but argues lack of prejudice (harmless). | Held: Failure to request was deficient, but on de novo review the court found no reasonable probability the result would differ under Dyle; no prejudice, so no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (pretrial photographic identification undue-suggestiveness standard)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (two-step test: consider suggestiveness, then totality-of-circumstances reliability)
- State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995) (adopts eyewitness-identification jury instruction when identity is material)