State of Tennessee v. David Sharp, M2016-01072-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Early morning Oct. 18, 2014: officers conducting a bar check at Tommy’s Tavern heard a crash and saw a white Chevrolet Cavalier backed into a light pole; officers ran to the car and ordered the driver to stop but the car drove off.
Multiple officers (Thomson, Goats, Holland) testified they glimpsed the driver for a few seconds and later identified David Sharp as the driver; officers obtained a partial plate, matched it to Christina Sharpe’s Cavalier, and viewed a DMV photo tied to Sharp’s license.
Sharp was indicted for driving on a revoked license and evading arrest (leaving-scene count dismissed pretrial); at trial defense presented alibi/mistaken-identity evidence: family witnesses said Sharp was clean-shaven and at home that night; girlfriend’s Facebook photo also showed him clean-shaven.
During cross-examination of Sharp’s father, the State suddenly produced and admitted an undated black-and-white photograph (Exhibit 9) showing Sharp with facial hair; the State offered it as rebuttal/impeachment; no date or provenance was established and the jury asked during deliberations about the photo’s origin/date.
The trial court admitted Exhibit 9 without a limiting instruction; the jury convicted Sharp of evading arrest and driving on a revoked license; on appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding admission of Exhibit 9 was erroneous and not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sharp)	Held
Admissibility of undated photo as rebuttal/impeachment	Photo was relevant to rebut father’s testimony that Sharp never had a goatee; rebuttal evidence is allowed and the State may impeach surprise defense testimony	Photo was irrelevant to whether Sharp had a goatee on the night of the offense (no date/provenance); admission unfairly prejudiced and confused the jury; no limiting instruction given	Court: Photo was not admissible as substantive proof of facial hair on the offense date; without date it was only impeachment and should have been limited — admission was reversible error because jury likely treated it as ID evidence
Rule 403 (unfair prejudice/confusion)	Probative value outweighed any prejudice; photo helped impeach father	Undated photo’s probative value slight; huge risk jurors would infer it was the DMV photo officers saw and use it substantively	Court: Even if marginally relevant for impeachment, danger of confusion and prejudice was substantial; admission would have been improper under Rule 403
Rule 404(b) — wording "criminal justice portal" on photo	N/A (State argues no plain error)	Words suggest prior criminality/official source and invite impermissible inference of bad acts	Court: Issue waived for failure to object below; no plain error found given ambiguity and surrounding markings indicating a DMV/driver-record source
Discovery (Rule 16) — State’s failure to disclose photo pretrial	Photo was rebuttal/impeachment; State not required to disclose under Rule 16 because it was not case-in-chief material	Photo was material; nondisclosure prejudiced defense (no time to prepare)	Court: Rejected relief on discovery ground — defendant did not show prejudice sufficient under Rule 16 (could have requested recess/continuance), though admission of the photo was reversible on other grounds
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Officer identifications and circumstantial evidence supported convictions	Identification unreliable: inconsistent officer testimony; defense witnesses placed Sharp at home and clean-shaven; Facebook photo showed clean-shaven Sharp	Court: Evidence sufficient. Despite inconsistencies and defense testimony, jury reasonably credited officers; convictions stand as to sufficiency but reversed due to photo error

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence) (establishes that conviction must be supported by evidence that any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. 2002) (discusses admissibility of evidence that contradicts witness testimony and impeachment vs. substantive evidence)
State v. Thompson, 43 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (defines rebuttal evidence and explains State’s right to rebut defense evidence presented at trial)
State v. Dellinger, 79 S.W.3d 458 (Tenn. 2002) (standard for appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings — abuse of discretion)
State v. Lunati, 665 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (rebuttal evidence must be relevant and material to issues on trial)