State of Tennessee v. Lavelle Moore, W2016-00094-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Lavelle Moore was tried for six counts of theft of property (each $500–$1000) arising from two separate Best Buy incidents on March 10, 2012 (morning and evening).
Store surveillance and employees testified: one laptop (Samsung, $873) taken in the morning; a second (Toshiba, $750) taken in the evening while defendant exited with an accomplice; vehicle registered to defendant observed leaving scene.
Several employees identified Moore by distinctive eyes; one employee identified him in a photo lineup weeks later; surveillance footage identifications were introduced at trial.
After closing, the jury began deliberations, reported being deadlocked, then asked to view the defendant’s eyes; over defense objection the court directed Moore to stand close to the jury during deliberations for the jury to examine his eyes.
Jury returned guilty verdicts; trial court merged counts into two convictions and imposed consecutive six-year sentences (effective 12 years). Defendant appealed raising sufficiency, impeachment with prior conviction, double jeopardy, identity instruction, jury eye-view, jury-coercion, and sentencing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	State: surveillance, employee IDs, alarm, missing inventory support convictions	Moore: identifications unreliable; no proof he concealed/lifted items; value not proven	Evidence sufficient as to both incidents; identifications and values support convictions
Impeachment with prior conviction	State: prior theft conviction admissible (crime of dishonesty)	Moore: prior theft too similar and unduly prejudicial	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; admissible; no prejudice shown (defendant did not testify)
Double jeopardy	State: two separate takings = two offenses	Moore: convictions arise from single episode	Waived on appeal; even on merits, two takings nine hours apart are separate — no double jeopardy
Jury viewing defendant’s eyes during deliberations	State: non-testimonial physical appearance may be shown; jurors relied on eyes	Moore: ordering him to display eyes after close of proof and during deliberations re-opened State’s proof, violated fair trial	Court: trial court abused discretion — permitting jury to view defendant’s eyes for first time after submission was new evidence during deliberations; error not harmless; reverse and remand for new trial

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995) (comprehensive identity jury instruction when identification is material)
State v. Jenkins, 845 S.W.2d 782 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) (allowing rereading or replaying evidence during deliberations under court guidance)
State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999) (Rule 609 analysis for impeachment with prior convictions)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review and presumption of reasonableness for sentencing)