Rashe Moore v. State of Tennessee
2016 Tenn. LEXIS 176
| Tenn. | 2016Background
- July 21, 1999: Home invasion in Memphis; multiple victims were robbed, bound, and sexually assaulted at gunpoint. Rashe Moore (younger intruder) and Genore Dancy (older intruder) were identified by several victims; Moore claimed an alibi at trial.
- Moore was convicted (2002) of aggravated burglary, multiple counts later merged of aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, and seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping; effective sentence 99 years.
- At trial the judge declined to instruct the jury on any lesser-included offenses; Moore’s counsel made only an oral request for facilitation on two rape counts and did not file written requests required by a recent statutory amendment.
- On direct appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Moore waived instructional error by failing to file written requests under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-110(c).
- In post-conviction proceedings Moore argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly request lesser-included offense instructions; the post-conviction court denied relief, but the Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial for the especially aggravated kidnapping counts.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether counsel’s omission was deficient and whether Moore suffered prejudice — clarifying the correct prejudice analysis when the jury had no option to convict of lesser offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to file written requests for lesser-included instructions was deficient performance | Trial counsel erred by not knowing the statute requiring written requests and therefore failed to preserve jury instruction issues | State conceded lack of knowledge was deficient but argued any omission was harmless given the evidence | Court: Counsel’s failure was deficient because it was not an informed strategic choice given the statutory change and appellate consequences |
| Proper prejudice standard for omitted lesser-included instructions when jury had no option to convict lesser offenses | Prejudice exists if a properly instructed jury would have convicted of a lesser offense instead of the charged offense | State: prejudice must be assessed by same harmless-error framework as direct review; conviction does not automatically prevent prejudice | Court: Prejudice inquiry requires showing a reasonable probability a properly instructed jury would have convicted of the lesser offense (adopting Allen analysis when jury had no lesser option); rejects “could” standard in favor of “would” standard |
| Application to especially aggravated kidnapping (whether aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, or false imprisonment could have been substituted) | Moore argued omission prejudiced him — could have been convicted of lesser kidnapping offenses | State argued overwhelming evidence supported use of deadly weapon, distinguishing especially aggravated kidnapping | Court: No reasonable probability jury would have convicted of lesser kidnapping; overwhelming evidence of use of guns makes omission harmless; reverses Court of Criminal Appeals’ grant of new trial on these counts |
| Application to other convictions (aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, facilitation, attempt) | Moore argued other lesser instructions (rape, sexual battery, robbery, theft, facilitation, attempt) were omitted and prejudicial | State argued distinguishing elements (weapon use, penetration, taking property, entry into habitation, completed offenses) were strongly proven and not part of Moore’s alibi defense | Court: No reasonable probability of conviction for lesser offenses on any of these counts; omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; post-conviction relief properly denied on remaining counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established deficiency and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181 (Tenn. 2002) (harmless-error/lesser-included-offense analysis when jury returns lesser verdict)
- State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101 (Tenn. 1998) (analysis where jury convicts of greater offense rejecting immediate lesser)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (deference to strategic choices only if informed)
- Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854 (Tenn. 2008) (prejudice inquiry for omitted lesser-included instructions evaluates whether jury would have convicted of lesser offense)
- Bryant v. State, 460 S.W.3d 513 (Tenn. 2015) (addressed lesser-included prejudice language; Court here clarifies and narrows its phrasing)