State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lynn Morris, W2017-00126-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On April 10, 2015, Robby Lax discovered a man (Kevin Lynn Morris) leaving his house with a saw and provided a description of the suspect and a “dark blue Ford stepside Ranger” with a painted blue emblem, painted toolbox, and painted wheels.
Chester County Sheriff Blair Weaver encountered a truck matching that description, initiated a stop, and arrested Morris after the truck fled briefly; Lax was driven by an officer and positively identified Morris shortly after the arrest and again at trial.
At trial the State rested; defense presented digital photographs of a truck in the county impound lot (not admitted into evidence) and elicited testimony from Sheriff Weaver about differences (chrome emblem/wheels) but Weaver could not definitively say the photos showed Morris’s truck.
The jury convicted Morris of aggravated burglary, theft, vandalism, and evading arrest; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling more than twenty years for the felony counts plus misdemeanor terms.
After trial, Morris moved for a new trial claiming newly discovered evidence: that the prosecutor showed the impound-lot photographs to Lax and Lax allegedly said the photos did not depict the truck he saw; no affidavit or testimony from Lax or other witnesses supporting that assertion was presented at the motion hearing.
The trial court denied the motion; on appeal Morris argued the denial was error because the alleged post-trial statement by Lax was newly discovered evidence that would likely change the outcome.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence	State: Defendant failed to present or prove the alleged new statement; the claimed statement is irrelevant and would not change the result.	Morris: After close of proof the prosecutor showed the impound photos to Lax and Lax said the photos were not the truck he saw, a materially impeaching statement warranting a new trial.	Court affirmed denial: Defendant did not prove the alleged new evidence, failed to show it was out of his control or material, and it would not likely change the verdict.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994) (elements for new-trial on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Goswick, 656 S.W.2d 355 (Tenn. 1983) (standards for relief based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Caldwell, 977 S.W.2d 110 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court’s discretion in new-trial rulings)
State v. Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. 1984) (mere impeachment typically insufficient for new trial)
State v. Singleton, 853 S.W.2d 490 (Tenn. 1993) (impeaching evidence may require new trial if it would probably result in acquittal)
State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (discussing materiality threshold for new trial)
Rosenthal v. State, 292 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1956) (historic precedent on new-trial grounds)
Evans v. State, 557 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977) (additional authority on when impeachment may justify new trial)